This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A blast from the past
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 02 07:09:06 EST
- Subject: Re: A blast from the past
Thu Apr 4 07:34:17 1991 Richard Kenner (kenner at vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu)
Wow! That's over a decade ago.
What I'm trying to figure out is why you didn't try to remove any SUBREGs
for op1 in a manner similar to how you try to remove them for op0.
Obviously I can't remember for sure, but my *guess* is that I felt
canonicalization would move the SUBREG operand to OP0. Unless that's wrong,
I think the only way OP1 could be a SUBREG is if both it and OP0 were.
I don't know why this code didn't try to handle that case.
Sorry, it's just too long ago to know more.