From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24239 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2007 09:10:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 24201 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2007 09:10:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate7.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate7.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.156) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:10:48 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate7.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA79AiiG348152 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:10:44 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.6) with ESMTP id lA79AiUG2179216 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:10:44 +0100 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lA79AiAd026638 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:10:44 +0100 Received: from lc4eb0107015440.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-216-52.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.216.52]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id lA79AhMj026576; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:10:43 +0100 Received: by lc4eb0107015440.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:09:34 +0100 From: "Andreas Krebbel" Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:10:00 -0000 To: Michael Meissner Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PING] Target hook for rewriting inline asm constraints Message-ID: <20071107090934.GA6594@homer.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <20071030115424.GA6864@homer.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20071106181838.GA31748@mmeissner-gold.amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071106181838.GA31748@mmeissner-gold.amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00310.txt.bz2 Hi Michael, thanks for your review. I'll address the points you mentioned. > Now, getting on the broader scope issues about the patch, I can sympathize with > the desire, but I think this is really opening up a can of worms if we let the > back end rewrite asm constraints like this. I'm also not sure I understand > what the exact problem is. I would imagine if you have address modes that are > allowed in some cases, but not others, this is better expressed in > GO_IF_MODE_DEPENDENT_ADDRESS instead of GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS. In order to support new address formats there is no other way than extending the GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS hook. All addresses not accepted by this hook will be reloaded into a register. The GO_IF_MODE_DEPENDENT_ADDRESS tells the middle end if an address should be interpreted depending on the mode of the memory access. How do you think this can help me here? Bye, -Andreas-