Hi Richard,

On 28/06/17 16:56, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:

>>
> 
> This is silently baking in dangerous assumptions about GCC's internal
> numbering of the registers.  That's not a good idea from a long-term
> portability perspective.
> 
> At the very least you need to assert that all the interesting registers
> are numbered in the range 0..63; but ideally the code should just handle
> pretty much any assignment of internal register numbers.

There is already such an assert in my patch. :-)

> 
> Did you consider using sbitmaps rather than doing all the multi-word
> stuff by steam?

I did now, most of it is trivial but interaction with compute_not_to_clear_mask 
is now more verbose because it returns a bitfield and one assert got quite ugly 
and expensive.

Please find an updated patch in attachment and judge by yourself.

Best regards,

Thomas