PATCH: bug in find_reloads_address_part
Ian Lance Taylor
iant@google.com
Wed Aug 1 13:54:00 GMT 2007
Richard Sandiford <richard@codesourcery.com> writes:
> I thought that too when I first saw it, because I assumed that the
> second argument would be stored. But as far as I can tell, that isn't
> true; the pointer never escapes. It would be wrong to pass loc rather
> than "&tem" because loc is not yet a memory reference, whereas "*memrefloc"
> must be.
Ah, yes, you're right.
Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com> writes:
> Richard's understanding of this issue matches mine. FWIW, here's the
> version of the patch I'm currently testing. Assuming this passes, is
> it OK to commit?
Yes.
Thanks.
Ian
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list