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: Combine deletes non noop insns


> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:26:41PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> > (insn 42 41 43 0 (nil) (set (zero_extract:SI (subreg:SI (reg:QI 125) 0)
> >             (const_int 8 [0x8])
> >             (const_int 24 [0x18]))
> >         (reg:SI 97)) 220 {insv_32} (insn_list 4 (insn_list 41 (nil)))
> 
> This seems odd to me.  Inserting data into the ignored 
> portion of a paradoxical subreg?

The data is inserted to the correct place but I see that the
subreg number is wrong.  It's probably another problem
related to the right justification of small BLKmode types.  How
the code that generated this managed to get the insert location
and the number bits to insert correct, but not the subreg is
strange.

Dave
-- 
J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)


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