On 05/17/2016 06:02 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
This bug is introduced by my commit r236181 where the inner rtx of
SUBREG haven't been checked while it should as "in_class_p" only
works with REG, and SUBREG_REG is actually not always REG. If REG_P
check failed, then we should fall back to normal code
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 17/05/16 11:23, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
This bug is introduced by my commit r236181 where the inner rtx of
SUBREG haven't been checked while it should as "in_
On 17/05/16 11:23, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
This bug is introduced by my commit r236181 where the inner rtx of
SUBREG haven't been checked while it should as "in_class_p" only
works with REG, and SUBREG_REG is actually not always REG. If
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> This bug is introduced by my commit r236181 where the inner rtx of
>> SUBREG haven't been checked while it should as "in_class_p" only
>> works with REG, and SUBREG_REG is actually not always REG. If REG_P
>> check failed, then w
Hello!
> This bug is introduced by my commit r236181 where the inner rtx of
> SUBREG haven't been checked while it should as "in_class_p" only
> works with REG, and SUBREG_REG is actually not always REG. If REG_P
> check failed, then we should fall back to normal code patch. The
> following simp
This bug is introduced by my commit r236181 where the inner rtx of
SUBREG haven't been checked while it should as "in_class_p" only
works with REG, and SUBREG_REG is actually not always REG. If REG_P
check failed, then we should fall back to normal code patch. The
following simple testcase for x
