-Original Message-
From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:56 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
Cc: Jeff Law; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix handling of word subregs of wide registers
Ajit Kumar Agarwal writes:
> J
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> This series is a cleaned-up version of:
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-03/msg00163.html
>>
>> The underlying problem is that the semantics of subregs depend on the
>> word size. You can't have a sub
Ajit Kumar Agarwal writes:
> Jeff Law writes:
>> On 09/19/14 01:23, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Jeff Law writes:
On 09/18/14 04:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This series is a cleaned-up version of:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-03/msg00163.html
>
> The unde
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
Behalf Of Richard Sandiford
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 12:54 PM
To: Jeff Law
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix handling of word subregs of wide registers
Jeff
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This series is a cleaned-up version of:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-03/msg00163.html
>
> The underlying problem is that the semantics of subregs depend on the
> word size. You can't have a subreg for byte 2 of a 4-byte word,
Jeff Law writes:
> On 09/19/14 01:23, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Jeff Law writes:
>>> On 09/18/14 04:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This series is a cleaned-up version of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-03/msg00163.html
The underlying problem is that the semantics o
On 09/19/14 01:23, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jeff Law writes:
On 09/18/14 04:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This series is a cleaned-up version of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-03/msg00163.html
The underlying problem is that the semantics of subregs depend on the
word size. You can't
On 09/19/14 01:23, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jeff Law writes:
On 09/18/14 04:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This series is a cleaned-up version of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-03/msg00163.html
The underlying problem is that the semantics of subregs depend on the
word size. You can't
Jeff Law writes:
> On 09/18/14 04:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> This series is a cleaned-up version of:
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-03/msg00163.html
>>
>> The underlying problem is that the semantics of subregs depend on the
>> word size. You can't have a subreg for byte 2 of a 4
On 09/18/14 04:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This series is a cleaned-up version of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-03/msg00163.html
The underlying problem is that the semantics of subregs depend on the
word size. You can't have a subreg for byte 2 of a 4-byte word, say,
but you can have
This series is a cleaned-up version of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-03/msg00163.html
The underlying problem is that the semantics of subregs depend on the
word size. You can't have a subreg for byte 2 of a 4-byte word, say,
but you can have a subreg for word 2 of a 4-word value (as well
11 matches
Mail list logo