From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13650 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2004 19:46:14 -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 13622 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2004 19:46:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Nov 2004 19:46:09 -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 iAHJk9lC031566; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:46:09 -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 iAHJk1r09775; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:46:02 -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 iAHJjscv014815; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:45:56 -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 iAHJjruE012425; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:45:53 -0800 Received: (from rth@localhost) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id iAHJjrKD012424; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:45:53 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:58:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Bob Wilson Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [cft] subreg validation round 2 Message-ID: <20041117194553.GA12418@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Bob Wilson , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <20041117184009.GA12257@redhat.com> <419BA411.5090801@tensilica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <419BA411.5090801@tensilica.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00574.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:18:41AM -0800, Bob Wilson wrote: > Is this my bug? Yes. BLKmode REGs are illegal. > If so, should I change FUNCTION_ARG code to avoid > returning a BLKmode reg? Should I wrap the REG in a PARALLEL? Presumably you didn't just return the SImode reg in the first place because you want the three bytes in the high part of the register? Then, yes, a PARALLEL should do. r~