On 27 November 2013 19:27, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/27/13 10:49, Yvan Roux wrote: >>> >>> How can that be correct? >>> >>> The secondary reload macros/hooks define cases where additional registers >>> are needed to reload certain forms of rtl. I doubt the use of LRA >>> completely eliminates the need for secondary reloads. >> >> >> Vladimir explained me that in that case on arm, secondary reload hook >> confuses LRA, and that returning NO_REGS will let LRA deal with >> constraints, but I may have badly understand what he said. > > So I think with the additional information from Vlad, I think we can go > forward with your patch -- conditionally approved for the trunk. The > condition is giving the ARM maintainers 24hrs to object. > > I'm concerned that we don't have good documentation on when these macros are > still needed in an LRA world. So it's much more difficult for anyone to > know if a change of this nature is correct or not. As you've likely seen > from my other replies in this thread, I've asked Vlad to work on the > documentation aspects.
Ok great, as I may play again with these macros to fix the iWMMXT issue. Yvan
