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: [trunk] Addition to subreg section of rtl.text.

> > I think one reason is that allowing zero_extracts of multi-word modes is
> > (like this subreg thing) a little hard to pin down.  What happens when
> > WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN && !BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN
> 
> Unless I had my grep wrong, the only such machines to do this are PDP11 
> and ARM with special flags (-mbig-endian -mwords-little-endian) that 
> were "for backward compatibility with older versions of GCC" in 1999 [1].
> 
> So, is this special case worth keeping?

I'd argue yes, whether or not such machines exist because of
orthogonality concerns: there's value in supporting all four possibilities.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]