From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11681 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2005 08:11:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11619 invoked by uid 48); 13 Jan 2005 08:11:24 -0000 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050113081124.11618.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "rth at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050106233743.19304.janis187@us.ibm.com> References: <20050106233743.19304.janis187@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/19304] [4.0 Regression] wrong code for spec test from emit_move_change_mode X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg01648.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-13 08:11 ------- My new code, so I'll own the bug. But I'm a bit confused by this. In what sort of situation are we requiring the subreg built, and simplify_subreg is rejecting the subreg as illegal? Could you run the compiler with your patch, but instead of a call to simplify_gen_subreg, call simplify_subreg (like below), but abort if it returns NULL? And then see if it triggers within the gcc source tree or something handy like that where it's legally easier to give me .i file? If you can't find anything but spec to produce this, we'll work something out, but I'm lazy and wanna try this the easy way first. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2005-01-07 12:24:56 |2005-01-13 08:11:21 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19304