From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joern Rennecke <amylaar@onetel.net.uk>
To: weigand@immd1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Weigand)
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com, hpenner@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: find_reloads_address_1 question
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 13:28:00 -0000
Message-id: <200110072025.VAA00656@meolyon.local>
References: <200110010042.CAA28641@faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00512.html

> Specifically I've tried to declare addresses of the form
>  (plus (plus (reg) (const_int)) (plus (reg) (const_int)))
...
> But this caused bootstrap failure because reload simply
> didn't reload the registers to hard registers and left
> pseudos in ...
> 
> Am I just trying something stupid here, or would this be
> considered a bug in reload?

Yes.  Both.  You are allowing non-canonical RTL, and AFAICT there is
no good reason to do this here.  On the other hand, gcc would be easier
to port if find_reloads_address either had a fallback method to reload
all kinds of addressing modes, or at least aborted for ones that it
doesn't handle.  Note that there is a comment at the start of this function
that hints at this defect:  ...this is not fully machine-customizable;... .