From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30290 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2004 22:52:23 -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 30276 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 22:52:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2004 22:52:23 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i87Mpql3029810; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 18:51:53 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i87MqL705880; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 18:52:22 -0400 Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.27]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i87MqLV30766; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:52:21 -0700 Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i87MqLOo031356; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:52:21 -0700 Received: (from rth@localhost) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i87MqLkd031354; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:52:21 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:52:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Richard Kenner Cc: amacleod@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Problem with operand handling Message-ID: <20040907225221.GA31348@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Richard Kenner , amacleod@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <10409072138.AA28326@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10409072138.AA28326@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00326.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 05:38:43PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote: > This is in addressable_vars and TREE_ADDRESSABLE isn't > set. That's wrong, isn't it? Yes, and is exactly the sort of mistake we expected. r~