On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:21:05AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
> Probably the compiler doesn't in general like a paradoxical subreg that
> can take more hard regs than its SUBREG_REG. I think this is probably
> something that can be worked around with a proper combination of
> MODES_TIEABLE_P, CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS, and maybe
> REG_CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_P. What are your definitions of those macros?
#define MODES_TIEABLE_P(MODE1, MODE2) \
(GET_MODE_SIZE(MODE1) > 1 && GET_MODE_SIZE(MODE2) > 1)
There are registers for which HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK (regno, QImode) returns
false but HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK (regno, HImode) (or larger) returns true.
#define CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS(FROM, TO, CLASS) \
((FROM == QImode || (TO) == QImode) \
&& reg_classes_intersect_p (HI_REGS, (CLASS)))
HI_REGS is a class containing registers which can't hold QImode values. They
are 16-bit only (%si, %di, %bp and %sp). Is there an undocumented assumption
here that if CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS() returns true, then the number of hard
regs used is unchanged?
I haven't heard of REG_CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_P before, and it isn't mentioned
in the documentation.
--
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
