On 17/05/12 14:23, Jim MacArthur wrote: > On 02/05/12 14:55, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Richard Earnshaw<rearn...@arm.com> writes: >>> On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>>> Jim MacArthur<jim.macart...@arm.com> writes: >>>>> New Changelog text: >>>>> >>>>> 2012-05-02 Jim MacArthur<jim.macart...@arm.com> >>>>> * recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and regno + offset are >>>>> hard registers. >>>> Thanks. I still think the final: >>>> >>>>> + && HARD_REGISTER_NUM_P (end_hard_regno (regno + offset, mode)) >>>> check belongs in in_hard_reg_set_p, since most callers don't (and IMO >>>> shouldn't need to) check this. The idea behind adding these functions >>>> was to commonise various bits of code that were doing the same checks >>>> in slightly different ways. Requiring each caller to check the end >>>> register would go against that to some extent. >>>> >>> If you're going to do that (which is fine, BTW), I think >>> in_hard_reg_set_p should gcc_assert() that regno is a valid hard reg. >> Sounds good. >> >> Richard >> > > Sorry for the delay in responding to this, I had a few problems with > end_hard_regno. Here's a new version of the patch, which adds to > in_hard_reg_set_p the assert and a check for the hardness of end_regno. > end_hard_regno is the exclusive upper bound of the range, so not > actually a meaningful reg no. HARD_REGNO_NREGS is required to return a > positive value, so (end_regno - 1) is always safe, as I understand it. > > I've tested this with an x86 bootstrap which shows no errors, and with > our own AArch64 back end. > > Jim > > New ChangeLog text: > > 2012-05-17 Jim MacArthur<jim.macart...@arm.com> > * recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and regno + offset are > hard registers. > * regs.h (in_hard_reg_set_p): Assert that regno is a hard register and > check end_regno - 1 is a hard register. >
OK. R.
