Re: legitimate address. Please HELP!

["Choi, Jang-Wook" <choijo at adc dot co dot kr>]

Hi, dimmy.
How about adding some code like the below?
But I don't guarantee.

cjw


On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, dimmy wrote:

> Fellows,
>
> Sorry bothering you.
>
> I am writing msp430 support for gcc-3.0 and got a question:
> How to get rid of operands like:
>
> (mem/s:HI (plus:HI (mem:HI (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 1 r1)
>                         (const_int 18 [0x12])) 0)
>                 (const_int 2 [0x2])) 3))
>
> ?
>
> The CPU core does support (mem:xx (plus reg:xx const_int)), but not the
> operand as shown above.
>
> I define  GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS(mode, operand, ADDR)
> as:
> ------------------------
> #ifdef REG_OK_STRICT
> #  define GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS(mode, operand, ADDR) \
> {                                                       \
>   if (legitimate_address_p (mode, operand, 1))          \
>     goto ADDR;                                          \
> }
> #  else
> #  define GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS(mode, operand, ADDR) \
> {                                                       \
>   if (legitimate_address_p (mode, operand, 0))          \
>     goto ADDR;                                          \
> }
> #endif
> --------------------------
> where legitimate_address_p is defined as follows:
> --------------------------
> int
> legitimate_address_p (mode, operand, strict)
> enum machine_mode mode;
> rtx operand;
> int strict;
> {
>     rtx x = operand;
>
>     /* accept @Rn */
>     if (GET_CODE (operand) == REG
>             &&(strict ? REG_OK_FOR_BASE_STRICT_P (x)
>                : REG_OK_FOR_BASE_NOSTRICT_P (x)))
>         return 1;
>
>     /* accept address */
>     if (CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P (operand))
>         return 1;

     /* don't accept plus(plus(reg, imm), imm) */
     if (GET_CODE (operand) == PLUS
             && GET_CODE (XEXP (operand, 0)) == PLUS)
         return 0;

     /* or this? */
     if (GET_CODE (operand) == MEM
             && GET_CODE (XEXP (operand, 0)) == PLUS
             && GET_CODE (XEXP (XEXP (operand, 0), 0)) == MEM
	     && GET_CODE (XEXP (XEXP (XEXP (operand, 0), 0), 0) == PLUS)
         return 0;

>     /* accept X(Rn) */
>     if (GET_CODE (operand) == PLUS
>             && GET_CODE (XEXP (operand, 0)) == REG
>             && REG_OK_FOR_BASE_P (XEXP (operand, 0))
>             && CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P (XEXP (operand, 1)))
>         return 1;
>
> }
> --------------------------
>
> Shall I define something else to prevent invalid address generation or what?
>
>
>
> By now I cannot compile only 'unwind-dw2-fde.c' in gcc-3.0/gcc
> Everything else seems to be fine!!!
>
> by the way, when I run xgcc, it produces an invalid code,
> when I run cc1, it does not want to compile and says:
>
> unwind-dw2-fde.c: In function `search_object':
> unwind-dw2-fde.c:930: Unrecognizable insn:
> (insn 1212 29 30 (set (reg:HI 14 r14 [49])
>         (mem/s:HI (plus:HI (mem:HI (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 1 r1)
>                         (const_int 12 [0xc])) 0)
>                 (const_int 10 [0xa])) 13)) -1 (nil)
>     (nil))
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Dmitry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------
> Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
> Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com