From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3992 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2004 19:30:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3985 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2004 19:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Jul 2004 19:30:15 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6EJUEe1031324; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:30:14 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6EJUE001743; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:30:14 -0400 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (vpn50-36.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.36]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i6EJUC38014808; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:30:13 -0400 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br [127.0.0.1]) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6EJUBeT018186; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:30:11 -0300 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i6EJUBqh018183; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:30:11 -0300 To: Richard Sandiford Cc: Kazu Hirata , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: add h8sx support to h8300 References: <20040621.102356.74724063.kazu@cs.umass.edu> <87fz83f456.fsf@redhat.com> <87zn6aevpa.fsf@redhat.com> <873c42e8rb.fsf@redhat.com> <87r7rh8hx8.fsf@redhat.com> <874qobvz2a.fsf@redhat.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat Global Engineering Services Compiler Team Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 04:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <874qobvz2a.fsf@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg01496.txt.bz2 On Jul 14, 2004, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Alexandre Oliva writes: >>> ! if (!regs_ever_live[HFP_REG]) >>> ! return NO_REGS; >> >> I had both HFP_REG and FP_REG at some point. I thought this would >> minimize the risk of running into the failure case. Don't you think >> so? > I wouldn't have thought checking for FP_REG was necessary. It really is > the liveness of er6 that we're concerned about. Then I totally misunderstand what's going on. I thought you were testing whether the frame pointer was used, not whether there was some random pseudo assigned to er6 by local or global. Which is it? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}