From 7467c975b3b98bd471bc375a2722dc81acc24931 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joern Rennecke Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:36:30 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Removed obsolete comment. From-SVN: r30488 --- gcc/reload.c | 8 -------- 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/reload.c b/gcc/reload.c index bc58b398607..46f29a069c7 100644 --- a/gcc/reload.c +++ b/gcc/reload.c @@ -4699,14 +4699,6 @@ find_reloads_address (mode, memrefloc, ad, loc, opnum, type, ind_levels, insn) that the index needs a reload and find_reloads_address_1 will take care of it. - There is still a case when we might generate an extra reload, - however. In certain cases eliminate_regs will return a MEM for a REG - (see the code there for details). In those cases, memory_address_p - applied to our address will return 0 so we will think that our offset - must be too large. But it might indeed be valid and the only problem - is that a MEM is present where a REG should be. This case should be - very rare and there doesn't seem to be any way to avoid it. - If we decide to do something here, it must be that `double_reg_address_ok' is true and that this address rtl was made by eliminate_regs. We generate a reload of the fp/sp/ap + constant and -- 2.30.2