------- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-21 14:14 ------- Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 00:34 +0000, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 > 00:34 ------- > The testcase no longer exhibits the bug, so this PR seems to represent > some underlying problem with compiler internals rather than any longer > being concerned with the failure of a particular testcase. > > Jeff Law had a patch at <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-01/msg01872.html>. > The discussion doesn't indicate anything in particular wrong with it, > was there some reason it wasn't applied? I don't think we ever came to a solid decision about which approach was better. My patch was simpler, but there may have been other cases that Alan's patch handled that mine didn't. I do think we all agreed that (subreg (mem)) was evil :-) I think the fact that unrelated changes masked all these issues and as a result this has been largely ignored for the last few years. jeff -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5169
