Jim Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:05 PM, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > > As a test, I added this API. It seems to work. I suppose there could > > be a better API where we determine if a constrain matches various > > memory spaces, then compare with the memory space of the operand, but > > I can't prove that's sufficiently flexible for all targets that > > support memory spaces. Heck, I'm not even sure what to call the > > macro, and > > "TARGET_IS_THIS_MEMORY_ADDRESS_RELOADABLE_TO_MATCH_THIS_CONTRAINT_P()" > > is a little long ;-) > > > > What do we think of this direction? > > We already have define_constraint and define_memory_constraint. We > could perhaps add a define_special_memory_constraint that returns > CT_SPECIAL_MEMORY which mostly operates like CT_MEMORY, except that it > doesn't assume any MEM can be reloaded to match.
But the only difference between define_memory_constraint and a plain define_constraint is just that define_memory_constraint guarantees that any memory operand can be made valid by reloading the address into a base register ... If the set of operands accepted by a constraint does *not* have that property, it must not be defined via define_memory_constraint, and you should simply use define_constraint instead. Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com