From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: SUBREGs and modes
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 05:58:00 -0000
Message-id: <20000802150417.K26939@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <20000802144916.L22797@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
X-SW-Source: 2000-08/msg00026.html

On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 02:49:16PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi
> (except for many other cases), my checker pointed out
> weird usage of SUBREGs. According to my uderstanding the docs, when
> WORDNUM is nonzero, the  innermode must be greater than word and
> the outer mode must be word.
> 
> My checker has caught occurences of subregs not matching these constraints
> such as:
> (subreg:HI (reg:DI ) 1)
> in i386.
> 
> These happends in early stages of RTL generation and seems to be results of
> combining two SUBREGS together. Simplifiers in recog.c and combine.c can't deal
> with such SUBREGS when they get constant insode so we at least miss
> optimizations.
> 
> So the question is, whether are such subregs correct, if so we
> should probably docuemnt their semantics and add optimizations, if not,
> how to avoid these?
> 
> Jakub: Does your (and Davids) SUBREG_BYTE work touch this issue somehow?

Yes, things are quite different.
First of all, one big endian subreg_lowpart_p has nonzero BYTENUM.
(subreg:QI (reg:SI %eax) 1) is legal e.g. on i386, that's %ah.
I hope SUBREG_BYTE will be integrated soon and thus am not sure how much is
it worth of regoing the SUBREG_WORD stuff now (it would definitely be much
more work for me to keep up with the patches).

	Jakub