Thank you.
I am assuming you already have basic generation of auto-incs and you
have your definitions for legitimate{legitimize}_address all set up
correctly.
Well, I think they are. But the problem could be this. Here are cuts
from the machine description dealing with auto-inc-dec:
#define
Hi,
I am working on a new port.
The target machine supports post-increment and pre-decrement
addressing modes. These modes are twice faster than indexed mode.
It is important for us that GCC consider them well.
I wrote emails to gcc-help and I was told that GCC was not so good at
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Florent Defayspira.inhabit...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am working on a new port.
The target machine supports post-increment and pre-decrement
addressing modes. These modes are twice faster than indexed mode.
It is important for us that GCC consider them well.
...@gcc.gnu.org] On
Behalf Of Ramana Radhakrishnan
Sent: 07 August 2009 14:11
To: Florent Defay
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: PRE_DEC, POST_INC
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Florent
Defayspira.inhabit...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am working on a new port.
The target machine supports
The comment for note_stores() (in rtlanal.c) says:
/* Call FUN on each register or MEM that is stored into or clobbered by X.
(X would be the pattern of an insn).
But this doesn't happen when a register is modified by e.g. a PRE_DEC
expression. Is this an oversight or intentional? If
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The comment for note_stores() (in rtlanal.c) says:
/* Call FUN on each register or MEM that is stored into or clobbered by X.
(X would be the pattern of an insn).
But this doesn't happen when a register is modified by e.g. a
