From c65916a688994dda3fdbf82113b929f0d06aff75 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard Kenner Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 08:00:34 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Update comments. From-SVN: r8365 --- gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.c b/gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.c index 0d7da7e4507..96aa14fad27 100644 --- a/gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.c +++ b/gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.c @@ -180,10 +180,12 @@ output_function_prologue(stream, size) second register file - this way we don't have to save regs! leaf functions are ~ 50% of all functions (dynamically!) - set/clear bit 11 (dec. 2048) to status word for switching - - but how can we do this? pdp11/45 says bit may only be set (p.24) + set/clear bit 11 (dec. 2048) of status word for switching register files - + but how can we do this? the pdp11/45 manual says bit may only + be set (p.24), but not cleared! + switching to kernel is probably more expensive, so we'll leave it - like this + like this and not use the second set of registers... maybe as option if you want to generate code for kernel mode? */ @@ -910,7 +912,7 @@ static int move_costs[N_REG_CLASSES][N_REG_CLASSES] = /* -- note that some moves are tremendously expensive, - because they require lots of tricks? do we have to + because they require lots of tricks! do we have to charge the costs incurred by secondary reload class -- as we do here with 22 -- or not ? */ -- 2.30.2