From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12406 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2003 21:38:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12399 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2003 21:38:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com) (66.187.237.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Aug 2003 21:38:39 -0000 Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h77Lcd2m013072; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:38:39 -0700 Received: (from rth@localhost) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h77LcdX8013070; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:38:39 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:45:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Richard Kenner Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Problem in split_basic_block Message-ID: <20030807213839.GG12906@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Richard Kenner , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <10308072038.AA09411@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10308072038.AA09411@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00453.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote: > I'm pretty sure not: it's only HPUX that's using it. They are handling > it the same way as VMS on Alpha. Well, the thing is, they needn't set up the segments in any way that's actually screwy. They *can* lay them out nicely sequential. But if you don't use addp4, you wind up with extra sext insns all the time. Unlike Alpha, there's no add instruction that sign (or zero) extends from 32-bits. None of my business, I guess. r~