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: [cft] subreg validation patch

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>
Cc: ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jh at suse dot cz
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:02:32 -0800
Subject: Re: [cft] subreg validation patch
References: <20041115200319.GA6075@redhat.com> <OFDC4B1D0A.ECA82BE9-ONC1256F4D.00766541-41256F4D.0077D99F@de.ibm.com>

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 10:49:06PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Ah, maybe not: gen_lowpart probably isn't safe here as it may attempt
> to generate new insns.  I think the appropriate thing to use here is
> gen_lowpart_SUBREG.  OK with that change if testing passes?

Hmm.  How about lowpart_subreg?  At least then we won't wind up
with nested subregs.

> Could you elaborate which docs?  I've been studying the 'subreg' section
> in rtl.texi for quite a while, and been a bit frustrated by its attempt
> to define things 'by example' instead of general statements ...

Nope.  On re-reading I don't see any such proscription.  I still
don't think it's a fantastic idea, but...


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [cft] subreg validation patch
  - From: Ulrich Weigand

References:
- Re: [cft] subreg validation patch
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [cft] subreg validation patch
  - From: Ulrich Weigand

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