[PATCH] RE: ill effect of <register>+<constant>

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:28:03PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 05:03:12PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com> 21.09.07 20:12 >>>
> > >On 21 September 2007 18:31, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com> writes:
> > >> 
> > >>>   I don't see how removing an unused and non-useful feature would really
> > >>> count as "crippling".  I'm not suggesting it should be disabled for ppc,
> > >>> but for x86, really .... what could conceivably be the use?
> > >> 
> > >> There are many more architectures besides ppc and x86.  Almost all of
> > >> them have numbered registers.
> > >
> > >  Are you deliberately missing the point on purpose for rhetorical purposes?
> > >I'm not suggesting it makes no sense for any architecture *except* x86.  I
> > >hope that is clearer.  It certainly does make sense for anything with a big
> > >set of idempotent numbered registers.
> > >
> > >  But really, please: what's the use of being able to turn (for example) cx
> > >into edi by adding a number to it?
> > 
> > Here's a patch that disables such for x86 and ia64. Perhaps a few other
> > architecture may want to follow.
> 
> Except that x86_64 has numbered registers as well, r8-r15.
> 

Registers in ia64 are also numbered.


H.J.