On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/26/14 15:00, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>The problem here is lra_substitute_pseudo calls gen_rtx_SUBREG with
>> a VOIDmode (const_int) argument but really it should not be calling
>> gen_rtx_SUBREG directly instead it should be usin
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The problem here is lra_substitute_pseudo calls gen_rtx_SUBREG with
>> a VOIDmode (const_int) argument but really it should not be calling
>> gen_rtx_SUBREG directly instead i
On 11/26/14 15:00, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Hi,
The problem here is lra_substitute_pseudo calls gen_rtx_SUBREG with
a VOIDmode (const_int) argument but really it should not be calling
gen_rtx_SUBREG directly instead it should be using
gen_lowpart_if_possible. This patch fixes that and adds a test
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> The problem here is lra_substitute_pseudo calls gen_rtx_SUBREG with
> a VOIDmode (const_int) argument but really it should not be calling
> gen_rtx_SUBREG directly instead it should be using
> gen_lowpart_if_possible. This patch fixe
Hi,
The problem here is lra_substitute_pseudo calls gen_rtx_SUBREG with
a VOIDmode (const_int) argument but really it should not be calling
gen_rtx_SUBREG directly instead it should be using
gen_lowpart_if_possible. This patch fixes that and adds a testcase
that had happened on x86_64.
OK? I bo