From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Denis Zaitsev Subject: Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:45:18 +0500 Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <20031225064518.F7419@zzz.ward.six> References: <20031225052045.A18774@zzz.ward.six> <20031225003819.GC13447@redhat.com> <20031225061524.E7419@zzz.ward.six> <87isk5lmk3.fsf@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87isk5lmk3.fsf@codesourcery.com>; from zack@codesourcery.com on Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 05:21:16PM -0800 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Andreas Jaeger , Richard Henderson , libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, linux-gcc@vger.kernel.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 05:21:16PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Denis Zaitsev writes: > > >> You could use the "X" constraint, which is supposed to mean "anything" > >> and by implication "unused", but it's normally only with scratch > >> registers, not memories, and the address reloads don't get deleted. > > > > Yes, I've tried the "X" - there is no difference from the "m" - all > > the same unneded extra code (exactly). > > I think the most constructive thing for you to do is find out _why_ > all this unneeded extra code is being generated for "m" constraints > and then submit a patch to fix it. So, does it mean that we are indeed speaking about the problem in GCC? And I agree, probably it's the best way... So, whould you please to show me any points to speed up my start? For now, the only one part of GCC is not really new for me :)