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 round 2

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>
Cc: Bob Wilson <bwilson at tensilica dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:22:28 -0800
Subject: Re: [cft] subreg validation round 2
References: <20041117184009.GA12257@redhat.com> <419BA411.5090801@tensilica.com> <20041117194553.GA12418@redhat.com> <wvnk6sjb8ks.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com>

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:17:07PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I realise that they are in general, but it's fairly clear that,
> for example, FUNCTION_VALUE is allowed to return BLKmode REGs.
> Routines like hard_function_value have code that specifically
> handles such cases.

I think you have a point.  I'll revert that part of the patch
and fix this a different way.  And update the documentation.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [cft] subreg validation round 2
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- [cft] subreg validation round 2
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [cft] subreg validation round 2
  - From: Bob Wilson
- Re: [cft] subreg validation round 2
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [cft] subreg validation round 2
  - From: Richard Sandiford

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