From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28898 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2011 13:54:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 28747 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2011 13:54:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from c60.cesmail.net (HELO c60.cesmail.net) (216.154.195.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:54:07 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO delta2) ([192.168.1.50]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2011 08:54:06 -0500 Received: from host-92-29-210-76.as13285.net (host-92-29-210-76.as13285.net [92.29.210.76]) by webmail.spamcop.net (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:54:07 -0500 Message-ID: <20111108085407.mxejggyta80okoks-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:03:00 -0000 From: Joern Rennecke To: Eric Botcazou Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: RFT: Fix PR middle/end-40154 References: <00264351905752@mail.embecosm.com> <201111081325.22318.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <20111108074714.ayp71feie8g4wkok-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <201111081410.26878.ebotcazou@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <201111081410.26878.ebotcazou@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.4) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg01186.txt.bz2 Quoting Eric Botcazou : >> set_unique_reg note already makes a number of checks so that its >> multitude of callers doesn't have to. E.g. it checks that there is >> indeed only one set, not only one set of a live register. > > Indeed, but not on the DATUM. P.S.: The DATUM is in the right mode for the computation that is being done, from a high-level perspective. The problem is that we don't have an insn that uses that mode to tag it on to, because the actual implementation of the computation uses a different mode. That is really not that much different from ending up with trying to put the note on an instruction that not only sets the result, but also some other value.