(subreg:SF (reg:SC)) question - 20020227-1.c failure

[Ulrich Weigand]

David Anglin wrote:

> (insn 40 39 41 0000000000000000 (set (reg:SF 68)
>         (subreg:SF (reg:DI 99) 0)) -1 (nil)
>     (nil))
> 
> (insn 41 40 42 0000000000000000 (set (reg:SF 69)
> 	(subreg:SF (reg:DI 99) 4)) -1 (nil)
>     (nil))

[snip]

> Jan was of the opinion that the subregs shown above were invalid.  Do
> others have an opinion on that?

Completely independent of the SCmode question, I don't see why those
subregs should be invalid.  On s390x, you could get something like this
when passing a 'struct { float x; float y; }' as function argument.
If there's no direct way to perform the move, this should be handled via 
a secondary memory reload ...

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de