From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (IDENT:qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA00801 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:02:43 -0700 Received: from upchuck.cygnus.com (taarna.cygnus.com [205.180.230.102]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA13802 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:04:23 -0800 (PST) To: Richard Henderson cc: John David Anglin , alan@linuxcare.com.au, rhirst@linuxcare.com, parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: pa reload problem Reply-To: law@redhat.com In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 08 Dec 2000 17:39:48 PST. <20001208173948.B4198@redhat.com> From: Jeffrey A Law Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:05:27 -0700 Message-ID: <23471.976334727@upchuck> Sender: law@cygnus.com List-ID: In message <20001208173948.B4198@redhat.com>you write: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 08:07:23PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote: > > It is my impression that the MEM would pass as a general_operand unless > > the volatile flag is set. It will pass GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS. Thus, > > the general_operand test doesn't look like it will work. > > Your GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS will accept the UNSPEC? > The mind boggles. Why, then, is this strange beast its own insn? > > Perhaps that is part of the bug... Ironic that this is the hack that I ripped out (for basically the same reasons) when I started working on V3. Unfortunately, I can't actually test it yet to see what problems removing that old hack will expose (FWIW, it's not my hack, and it pre-dates movement of everything to public lists, so there's no discussion of why the change was made). jeff