This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: assertify sh


Alexandre Oliva wrote:

Hmm...  `dieing' looks odd to me.  Isn't `dying' the correct spelling?
Or are both forms acceptable?

apparently dying is correct. I was thinking 'dying' was the process of adding dye :) Who came up with this stupid language?

   /* Hard reg 1 is live; since this is a SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES target,
      there shouldn't be anything but a jump before the function end.  */
!   gcc_assert (TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (regs_live, 7));
!   return gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, 7);
 }

It looks like the sense of the assertion got accidentally reversed
here.  Before, the code would abort if TEST_HARD_REG_BIT yielded
nonzero; after your change, it aborts if it yields zero.
good catch, thanks!

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk


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