From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20438 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2009 22:35:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 20429 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2009 22:35:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (HELO wa-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.146.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:35:36 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m38so59631waf.8 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:35:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.115.3.6 with SMTP id f6mr5248564wai.22.1251844534398; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:35:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Replacing certain operations with function calls From: Jean Christophe Beyler To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 I don't think I quite understand what you're meaning. I want to use the standard ABI, basically I want to transform certain operations into function calls. In regard to what you said, do you mean I should build the tree before the expand pass, by writing a new pass that will work on the trees instead of rtx? Otherwise, I fail to see how that is different to what I'm already doing. Would you have an example? Thanks, Jc PS: Although when I look at what GCC generates at the expand stage, it really does seem that he first generates the calculation of the parameters in pseudo-registers and then moves them to the actual output registers. It's the next phases that will combine the two to save a move. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jean Christophe Beyler writes: > >> First off: does this seem correct? > > Awkward though it is, it may be more reliable to build a small tree here > and pass it to expand_call. =A0This assumes that you want to use the > standard ABI when calling this function. > > Then your second issue would go away. > > Ian >