From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>
To: Jim MacArthur <jim.macarthur@arm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [patch] More thorough checking in reg_fits_class_p
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 09:11:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <g4r4uhx397.fsf@richards-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FB4FBE3.5050207@arm.com> (Jim MacArthur's message of "Thu, 17 May 2012 14:23:47 +0100")
Jim MacArthur <jim.macarthur@arm.com> writes:
> On 02/05/12 14:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Earnshaw<rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
>>> On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>> Jim MacArthur<jim.macarthur@arm.com> writes:
>>>>> New Changelog text:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012-05-02 Jim MacArthur<jim.macarthur@arm.com>
>>>>> * recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and regno + offset are
>>>>> hard registers.
>>>> Thanks. I still think the final:
>>>>
>>>>> + && HARD_REGISTER_NUM_P (end_hard_regno (regno + offset, mode))
>>>> check belongs in in_hard_reg_set_p, since most callers don't (and IMO
>>>> shouldn't need to) check this. The idea behind adding these functions
>>>> was to commonise various bits of code that were doing the same checks
>>>> in slightly different ways. Requiring each caller to check the end
>>>> register would go against that to some extent.
>>>>
>>> If you're going to do that (which is fine, BTW), I think
>>> in_hard_reg_set_p should gcc_assert() that regno is a valid hard reg.
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding to this, I had a few problems with
> end_hard_regno. Here's a new version of the patch, which adds to
> in_hard_reg_set_p the assert and a check for the hardness of end_regno.
> end_hard_regno is the exclusive upper bound of the range, so not
> actually a meaningful reg no. HARD_REGNO_NREGS is required to return a
> positive value, so (end_regno - 1) is always safe, as I understand it.
>
> I've tested this with an x86 bootstrap which shows no errors, and with
> our own AArch64 back end.
Since I kicked up a fuss: looks good to me, thanks. Richard would have
to be the one to approve it though.
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-18 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-26 13:21 Jim MacArthur
2012-04-30 13:45 ` Richard Earnshaw
2012-04-30 14:08 ` Richard Sandiford
2012-04-30 14:13 ` Richard Earnshaw
2012-04-30 14:39 ` Richard Sandiford
2012-04-30 14:57 ` Richard Earnshaw
2012-04-30 15:19 ` Richard Sandiford
2012-05-02 12:04 ` Jim MacArthur
2012-05-02 13:00 ` Richard Sandiford
2012-05-02 13:52 ` Richard Earnshaw
2012-05-02 13:56 ` Richard Sandiford
2012-05-17 13:24 ` Jim MacArthur
2012-05-18 9:11 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2012-05-21 14:48 ` Richard Earnshaw
2012-05-24 11:35 ` Marcus Shawcroft
2012-04-30 14:32 ` Richard Earnshaw
2012-04-30 15:37 ` Georg-Johann Lay
2012-04-30 15:45 ` Richard Earnshaw
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=g4r4uhx397.fsf@richards-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com \
--to=rdsandiford@googlemail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jim.macarthur@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).