Re: Reload patch to improve 386 code

[Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>]

  In message < 199809041944.UAA32705@phal.cygnus.co.uk >you write:

  > > So, I'm not sure it's time to ditch the inheritance code yet.  Given
  > > the structure of the locally spilling reload code, I do see how reload
  > > inheriting gets noticably more complicated.
  > > 
  > > One thing we should try is a cook off between the locally spilling reload
  > > code (with inheritance disabled) and the existing reload code.  If
  > > the locally spilling reloader generally wins, I'll support disabling
  > > inheritance to get the benefit of local spilling.  Then we can go
  > > back later and try to make inheritance work with your reload code.
  > 
  > 
  > This is not acceptable for the SH target.  Reload inheritance is of paramount
  > importance.  The x86 doesn't suffer from these problems because it's so
  > CISCy that almost every address generated for a typical C program is valid.
Please reread my paragraph again.

We will look at both and pick whichever gives better overall results.
That may mean specific cases or specific targets are hurt.  We will
have to go back and fix them.

If it turns out that most targets benefit, but the SH loses, then I'm
going to go with the new code.  Sorry, but the needs of the any 
single port alone do not control the direction of the egcs project.


jeff