From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: meissner@cygnus.com
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com, gcc2@cygnus.com, michaelh@ongaonga.chch.cri.nz
Subject: Re: base + index register addressing 
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:57:00 -0000
Message-id: <11849.877108032@hurl.cygnus.com>
References: <199710171637.MAA26061@tweedledumb.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1997-10/msg00728.html

  In message < 199710171637.MAA26061@tweedledumb.cygnus.com >you write:
  > | It's worth noting that patch only helps when the base/index is a hard reg
  > ,
  > | which limits its usefulness on most of our platforms.  It's unclear if
  > | the benefit for handling scaled register would outweigh the work involved
  > .
  > 
  > Consider when the base register is the stack/frame/argument pointer.
Well, on targets where we do fp/ap elimination we still don't care
all that much since most don't have reg + scaled reg/const + constant offset.
Which is what such addresses will turn into when the fp/ap gets eliminated.

I'm not saying this extension isn't useful, just that it isn't as useful
as one might initially think.

jeff