2013/5/14 nick clifton <ni...@redhat.com>: > Hi Steven, > > >> Should new ports be allowed in if they rely so heavily on reload? > > As it happens I am currently working on enabling LRA for the MSP430 target. > Although I have run into a roadblock with a possibly unacceptable patch to > simplify_subreg_regno: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg00135.html > > The LRA conversion is a work in progress however, and one that does not have > my highest priority, so we would really like to have the current > reload-heavy version accepted. The current version works, and it will be > converted to LRA in the future, so is it really necessary to block its > adoption now ? > > Cheers > Nick
Hi, Nick, Apparently I am not the one who have right to review your code. But in my point of view, your implementation does not use reload stuff such as push_reload or xxx_RELOAD_yyy target hooks. So I think your msp430 contribution is a 'reload-light' port, not a 'reload-heavy' version you worried about. ;) Best regards, jasonwucj
