From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5348 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2004 22:02:45 -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 5316 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2004 22:02:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Nov 2004 22:02:40 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAFM2dBB023789; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:02:39 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iAFM2br05710; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:02:37 -0500 Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.27]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iAFM2Xcv004961; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:02:34 -0500 Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iAFM2WpG006373; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:02:32 -0800 Received: (from rth@localhost) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id iAFM2WDL006372; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:02:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:08:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jh@suse.cz Subject: Re: [cft] subreg validation patch Message-ID: <20041115220232.GA6339@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Ulrich Weigand , ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jh@suse.cz References: <20041115200319.GA6075@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00496.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 10:49:06PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Ah, maybe not: gen_lowpart probably isn't safe here as it may attempt > to generate new insns. I think the appropriate thing to use here is > gen_lowpart_SUBREG. OK with that change if testing passes? Hmm. How about lowpart_subreg? At least then we won't wind up with nested subregs. > Could you elaborate which docs? I've been studying the 'subreg' section > in rtl.texi for quite a while, and been a bit frustrated by its attempt > to define things 'by example' instead of general statements ... Nope. On re-reading I don't see any such proscription. I still don't think it's a fantastic idea, but... r~