From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19851 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2011 13:05:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 19843 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jul 2011 13:05:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (HELO mailout-de.gmx.net) (213.165.64.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:05:21 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Jul 2011 13:05:19 -0000 Received: from mon.egee-see.org (EHLO [139.91.70.93]) [139.91.70.93] by mail.gmx.net (mp037) with SMTP; 08 Jul 2011 15:05:19 +0200 Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:13:00 -0000 From: Dimitrios Apostolou To: Paolo Bonzini cc: GCC Patches , richard.sandiford@linaro.org Subject: Re: what can be in a group set? In-Reply-To: <4E16FE7E.6070706@gnu.org> Message-ID: References: <4E16ADAB.4000409@gnu.org> <4E16FE7E.6070706@gnu.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LNX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00632.txt.bz2 On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/08/2011 12:43 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> The docs also say that the first expr_list can be null: >> >> If @var{lval} is a @code{parallel}, it is used to represent the case of >> a function returning a structure in multiple registers. Each element >> of the @code{parallel} is an @code{expr_list} whose first operand is a >> @code{reg} and whose second operand is a @code{const_int} representing >> the >> offset (in bytes) into the structure at which the data in that register >> corresponds. The first element may be null to indicate that the >> structure >> is also passed partly in memory. >> >> but I can't see any code to handle that. Am I missing something, >> or does the lack of a crash here mean that we can remove the last >> sentence? >> >> (It might have been added for symmetry with argument passing, where this >> sort of thing is needed. But if it isn't actually used or implemented for >> returns, it might be less confusing to remove it.) > > Indeed. Dimitrios, can you pick up the patch since it will somewhat simplify > your work to eliminate defs_generated? I'll certainly try :-) Paolo, something else, in df_mark_reg() is it ever possible for regno to be >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER? An assert I've put doesn't trigger for my simple test :-) Thanks, Dimitris