From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25026 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2002 15:44:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24995 invoked by uid 61); 23 Apr 2002 15:44:21 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020423154421.24994.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, iant@palmchip.com, pb@gcc.gnu.org, rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org From: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, iant@palmchip.com, pb@gcc.gnu.org, rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/592: [ARM/Thumb] Poor choice of PIC register X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01202.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: [ARM/Thumb] Poor choice of PIC register Responsible-Changed-From-To: pb->rearnsha Responsible-Changed-By: rearnsha Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Apr 23 08:44:20 2002 Responsible-Changed-Why: . State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->suspended State-Changed-By: rearnsha State-Changed-When: Tue Apr 23 08:44:20 2002 State-Changed-Why: Having given this some consideration, I'm no-longer convinced that fixing a lo reigster is a good idea: it would unduly pessimize other code and might lead to situations where we would run out of registers. The best solution would be to make the PIC register a pseudo, but apparently there are other issues that prevent this. I believe the orignal problem that provoked this report has now been resolved. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=592