From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23375 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2002 10:46:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23353 invoked by uid 71); 23 Jan 2002 10:46:08 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 02:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020123104608.23352.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: pb@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Phil Blundell Subject: Re: target/2309: [ARM] SUBREG in memory reference Reply-To: Phil Blundell X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00823.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/2309; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Phil Blundell To: Richard Earnshaw Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/2309: [ARM] SUBREG in memory reference Date: 23 Jan 2002 10:36:30 +0000 On Wed, 2002-01-23 at 10:26, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > I have the original post as sent out by gnats, but I can't even extract > the testcase from that. So I think it must either have been corrupted > right up front, or have been a bad attachment in the first place. > > However, sleuthing shows that the problem may have been fixed: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-04/msg00131.html That patch doesn't seem to have been applied to the 3.0 branch or the trunk. They both just say: Note this assumes that the target dependent files treat REG and SUBREG equally, including within GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS and in all the predicates since we never verify that replacing the original register with a SUBREG results in a recognizable insn. */ > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-06/msg00419.html Do you think GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS in arm.h wants the same treatment that mips.h got here, ie this kind of thing: while (GET_CODE (xinsn) == SUBREG) xinsn = SUBREG_REG (xinsn); p.