This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: RFC: subreg fixing (extract_bit_field or simplify_subreg)

From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
To: Ulrich Weigand <weigand at i1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de>
Cc: rth at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:40:56 -0400
Subject: Re: RFC: subreg fixing (extract_bit_field or simplify_subreg)
References: <20041028183145.GA1965@redhat.com> <200410281843.i9SIhmUN012975@faui1g.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>

On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 08:43:48PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> 
> > The RTL is invalid because you can't have a SI subreg of a DF value.
> 
> Why do you think so?

Richard said it was invalid a while ago, but I may be mistaken.

Richard, is (subreg:SI (reg:DF)) valid or not?

If it isn't, I'm sure classic PPC creates it while building floatdidf.

Aldy

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: subreg fixing (extract_bit_field or simplify_subreg)
  - From: Geoffrey Keating

References:
- Re: RFC: subreg fixing (extract_bit_field or simplify_subreg)
  - From: Aldy Hernandez
- Re: RFC: subreg fixing (extract_bit_field or simplify_subreg)
  - From: Ulrich Weigand

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]