From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9197 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2009 14:17:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 9179 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2009 14:17:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f205.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f205.google.com) (209.85.219.205) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:17:42 +0000 Received: by ewy1 with SMTP id 1so1081099ewy.8 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.10.8 with SMTP id 8mr4221570ebj.99.1244643459555; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm212637eya.29.2009.06.10.07.17.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:17:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A2FC356.4080107@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:17:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean Christophe Beyler CC: Dave Korn , Michael Hope , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Expanding a load instruction References: <4A293E50.4010301@gmail.com> <4A2EE3E6.90901@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 Jean Christophe Beyler wrote: > I'll be looking into this but I thought that GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS > is for branches ? No, absolutely not. GILA is a general filter that has overall control over which forms of addressing modes used to address memory may be generated in RTL. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Addressing-Modes.html Hmm, I must have been looking at a slightly outdated build of the docs; according to that page it's been deprecated on HEAD in favour of the hook TARGET_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS_P. You'll need to check the particular sources you're using, that must be a fairly recent change(*). cheers, DaveK -- (*) - Yes: it was changed in r.147534, around four weeks ago. http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=147534