This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: (subreg:SF (reg:SC)) question - 20020227-1.c failure
- From: Ulrich Weigand <weigand at immd1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de>
- To: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca (John David Anglin)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, weigand at immd1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de
- Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 22:09:57 +0200 (MET DST)
- Subject: Re: (subreg:SF (reg:SC)) question - 20020227-1.c failure
David Anglin wrote:
> (insn 40 39 41 0000000000000000 (set (reg:SF 68)
> (subreg:SF (reg:DI 99) 0)) -1 (nil)
> (nil))
>
> (insn 41 40 42 0000000000000000 (set (reg:SF 69)
> (subreg:SF (reg:DI 99) 4)) -1 (nil)
> (nil))
[snip]
> Jan was of the opinion that the subregs shown above were invalid. Do
> others have an opinion on that?
Completely independent of the SCmode question, I don't see why those
subregs should be invalid. On s390x, you could get something like this
when passing a 'struct { float x; float y; }' as function argument.
If there's no direct way to perform the move, this should be handled via
a secondary memory reload ...
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de