> Indeed, I think it has to be the mode of loc, but I just wonder if it
> is not always the same, as in the doc it is written that mode m is the
> same as the mode that would be used for loc if it were a register.
So can we assert that we have a REG here and use GET_MODE (XEXP (x, 0))? Or
else return false if we don't have a REG.
> According to gcc internals, ROTATE and ROTATERT are similar to the
> shifting operations, but to be more accurate maybe we can rename
> shif_code_p in shift_and _rotate_code_p rotation are used in arm
> address calculation, and thus need to be handle in must_be_index_p
> and set_address_index
Egad. I guess I just wanted to see it written down. :-)
Btw, are you sure that you don't need to modify must_be_index_p instead?
/* Return true if X must be an index rather than a base. */
static bool
must_be_index_p (rtx x)
{
return GET_CODE (x) == MULT || GET_CODE (x) == ASHIFT;
}
and call it from set_address_index?
--
Eric Botcazou
