From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-124389-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1338 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2004 07:19:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 1299 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2004 07:19:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Aug 2004 07:19:18 -0000
Received: from extimap.suse.de (extimap.suse.de [195.135.220.6])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F72AA05C61;
	Mon,  9 Aug 2004 09:16:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from stevenb.home.suse.de (70-90.ipact.nl [82.210.90.70])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by extimap.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D8187E26D3; Mon,  9 Aug 2004 09:16:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
Organization: SUSE Labs
To: Revital Eres <ERES@il.ibm.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Splitting memory references during unrolling (resubmission)
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 07:19:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <OF414523BA.9F1F83DE-ONC2256EEB.00205E24-C2256EEB.0023CD3E@il.ibm.com> <200408090914.39979.stevenb@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <200408090914.39979.stevenb@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200408090916.47231.stevenb@suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00487.txt.bz2

On Monday 09 August 2004 09:14, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >   if ((REG_P (dest) || GET_MODE (dest) == SUBREG)
> >       && GET_CODE (src) == MEM)
>
> I believe you want GET_CODE here, not GET_MODE.  And when it is a
> SUBREG, you probably want to make sure that SUBREG_REG is a REG.  And
> you can use MEM_P now instead of GET_CODE (src) == MEM.
> So the condition should be:
>
>   if ((REG_P (dest)
>        || (GET_MODE (dest) == SUBREG
Aargh            ^

> 	   && REG_P (SUBREG_REG (dest))))
>       && MEM_P (src))

Never c&p a bad hunk.

  if ((REG_P (dest)
       || (GET_CODE (dest) == SUBREG
	   && REG_P (SUBREG_REG (dest))))
      && MEM_P (src))

Time for instant self-punishment.

Gr.
Steven