This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: your mail
- To: Bernd Schmidt <crux at pool dot informatik dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- Subject: Re: your mail
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:23:37 -0600
- cc: egcs-patches at cygnus dot com, gcc-local at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9810191130010.27612-100000@matula.informatik.rwth-
aachen.de>you write:
> That sounds like a different problem. If I remember correctly, the other
> problem resulted from rtl of the form
>
> (set (reg 42) (reg 33))
>
> (set (reg 42) (ashift (reg 42) (const_int 6))
>
> where reg 33 was allocated to ecx, and reg 42 had no hard reg. At the
> second insn, the inheritance code remembered (correctly) that reg 42 can
> be inherited from ecx.
> The problem was that the test whether ecx may safely be modified was
> incorrect, and so the second insn was reloaded to use ecx for both
> occurrences of reg 42.
OK. Thanks for checking up on this for me. I agree, they sound like different
issues.
jeff