https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102395

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Actually it might be easier to change line 1291:
>   gcc_assert (sclass < LIM_REG_CLASSES);
> 
> to be:
>   gcc_assert (sclass < LIM_REG_CLASSES && sclass >= NO_REGS);
> 
> I don't see how -1 is coming into play ...



So the requirement is NO_REGS first is documented in tm.texi so
gcc_assert (sclass < LIM_REG_CLASSES && sclass >= NO_REGS);

Reply via email to