From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-173545-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27166 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2012 05:45:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 27147 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2012 05:45:42 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-pz0-f49.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f49.google.com) (209.85.210.49)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 05:45:29 +0000
Received: by dadq36 with SMTP id q36so3324621dad.22        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.136.41 with SMTP id px9mr952074pbb.147.1333777528536;        Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PaulHP (124-149-166-113.dyn.iinet.net.au. [124.149.166.113])        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id or6sm5215629pbc.43.2012.04.06.22.45.25        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);        Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <628AD44D4A28409485757A69C7BC3663@PaulHP>
From: "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com>
To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: i370 port
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 05:45:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;	format=flowed;	charset="iso-8859-1";	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2

Hi Ulrich.

A further question.

I put some debugging on here:

  op0 = XEXP (operands[0], 0);
  if (GET_CODE (op0) == REG
      || (GET_CODE (op0) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (op0, 0)) == REG
    && GET_CODE (XEXP (op0, 1)) == CONST_INT
    && (unsigned) INTVAL (XEXP (op0, 1)) < 4096))
  {
    op0 = operands[0];
    fprintf(stderr, \"used as-is\n\");
  }
  else
  {
    op0 = replace_equiv_address (operands[0], copy_to_mode_reg (SImode, 
op0));
    fprintf(stderr, \"replaced\n\");
  }

And I found out that op0 is already being "replaced". Shouldn't this
replacement eliminate the index register and just have a base
register, so that I don't need the hack further down?

Thanks.  Paul.