Re: Fix for 991213-3.c in new arm backend

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>]

> Hi Guys,
> 
>   I am about to apply the following patch to fix the failure of gcc
>   testcase compile/991213-3.c in the new arm backend.  The testcase
>   looks like this:
> 
>      int jump () { goto * (int (*) ()) 0xbabebec0; }
> 
>   and the expand for the ARM was failing to force the address into a
>   register.

I think it would be far better to restrict the indirect_jump expander's 
predicate to just s_register_operand (a subset of register_operand).  The 
cse/combine patches can then generate the extended forms of indirect jump 
(eg from an address in memory) that are supported in ARM mode.

ergo:

;; Basic form supported by both targets.
(define_expand "indirect_jump"
  [(set (pc)
	(match_operand:SI 0 "s_register_operand" ""))]
  "TARGET_EITHER"
  ""
)

R.