This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
In the crx case, the un-wrapping of the subreg isn't saved back into the crx_address structure, and so the subreg will make it to
if (address.base && !REGNO_OK_FOR_BASE_P (REGNO (address.base)))
which ought to ICE due to REGNO applied to SUBREG. Which probably will never happen, since this only happens for strict, and I expect that subregs of hard regs are resolved by now.
cleanup_subreg_operands runs at the end of reload, but during reload you might still see subregs.
That said, a more correct patch seems like it would be like this:
Yes, that makes sense. Although the one thing that stayed the same for crx_addr_reg_p - its name - doesn't fit as well anymore.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |