This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: paradoxical subreg problem
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:03:20 -0700
- Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20020128115045.A26034@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson writes:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 12:26:13PM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> > > That would be a bug. A failure to call simplify_subreg or
> > > simplify_gen_subreg.
> > I disagree given the above docs.
> Given the problem you're seeing, wouldn't it be better to
> disallow it anyway and fix the docs? I can't imagine what
> good you could do by allowing such a thing.
Possibly -- I don't even known why it's allowed in this case. There
may be a good reason for it, then again, there may not. My gut
instinct is to disallow it, given the semantic issues that arise.
However, even if we do that I think we need to clarify precisely what
the semantics of a paradoxical subreg really are. Clearly there is
[ Actually my preference would be to zap paradoxical subregs, but I
don't think we're in a position to do that right now. ]