https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68729
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2015-12-08 2:53 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote: > In the case you're running into, I believe he high portion has to be > considered > "clobbered" as in we won't know its contents. So I think the clause where we > generate a new SUBREG expression and call alter_subreg is safe. Essentially > operand1 ought to be a MEM of some kind after that code fragment (as it would > be if operand1 was a pseudo rather than a paradoxical pseudo). Okay. I have a fix for the rest although I'm still thinking about some details.
