Re: Updated PATCH for expr.c problems (MIPS, 386), 1.1.2 andcurrent

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>]

On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>   In message <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9904120519480.27790-100000@dair.pair.com>you write
>   > Not if your point is that the mips address recognition is
>   > responsible.
> Yes.  That is still my point.  And apparently you still do not understand.

I understand that force_reg gets a (plus reg const_int) on multiple
targets, and that a (plus ...) is invalid input to force_reg. 

I don't understand why you don't agree that that is really a
target-independent bug.

>   > Incorrect, I get it on i686-pc-linux-gnulibc1 *native* too, just
>   > as I said and showed in
>   > <URL:http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/egcs-patches/1999-03/msg00462.html>.
>   > The same thing happens with current CVS.
> No.  I just tried it on the x86.  No problems at all.

I did too and guess what...  Still same problem.

No *visible* problems though; no crash, no incorrect assembly code.

As I said, force_reg (and emit_move_insn) receives a (plus ...)
where it should have got a reg, mem or const; that's what can be
seen on other targets (than the mipsel-unknown-netbsd).

If you were looking for a crash, you would not have seen it.
If you were doing a "break emit_move_insn if y->code == PLUS" you should
have seen it.

brgds, H-P