From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7563 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2004 00:53:14 -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 7494 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2004 00:53:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO modra.org) (144.136.221.26) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Nov 2004 00:53:09 -0000 Received: by bubble.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6C98B103167; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:23:08 +1030 (CST) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:06:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: Richard Henderson , Bob Wilson , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [cft] subreg validation round 2 Message-ID: <20041118005308.GC17083@bubble.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Bob Wilson , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <20041117184009.GA12257@redhat.com> <419BA411.5090801@tensilica.com> <20041117194553.GA12418@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041117194553.GA12418@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00598.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:18:41AM -0800, Bob Wilson wrote: > > 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. Or define a suitable BLOCK_REG_PADDING. At least, that used to work.. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre