This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@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]

Re: grokfield miscompiled with -O9


On Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 05:52:22PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> The real problem was that insn 40 shouldn't have been emitted like
> that.  I believe subregs should never be used to initialize a
> register like that.

No, that's fine.  Quoting from the documentation on SUBREG:

     Storing in a non-paradoxical `subreg' has undefined results for
     bits belonging to the same word as the `subreg'.  This laxity makes
     it easier to generate efficient code for such instructions.

So we've identified a bug in expand_compound_operation, or
one of the non-zero-bits functions.  I'll look into it with
one of yall's test cases.

> 	* toplev.c (rest_of_compilation): Initialize cse_not_expected as
> 	in prepare_function_start().

This is fine.


r~

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