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)

Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> writes:

> 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.

I think it creates (subreg:SI (reg:DI)), for this very reason.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]