On 12/05/11 10:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:09:42AM +0100, Hari Sandanagobalane wrote:
The REGNO_REG_CLASS is generally an array of size
FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER. So, the indexes go from 0 to
FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER-1.
That is true.
I think the ">=" condition is fine in t
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:09:42AM +0100, Hari Sandanagobalane wrote:
> The REGNO_REG_CLASS is generally an array of size
> FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER. So, the indexes go from 0 to
> FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER-1.
That is true.
> I think the ">=" condition is fine in that
> case. Do you agree?
That is wron
On 11/05/11 19:32, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 05/11/2011 10:07 AM, Hari Sandanagobalane wrote:
Hello,
I discussed this problem with Vlad in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-05/msg00131.html. I propose the
following patch to fix it. Okay to commit?
Revised the ChangeLog.
Thanks
Hari
ChangeLog:
On 05/11/2011 10:07 AM, Hari Sandanagobalane wrote:
Hello,
I discussed this problem with Vlad in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-05/msg00131.html. I propose the
following patch to fix it. Okay to commit?
Revised the ChangeLog.
Thanks
Hari
ChangeLog:
* ira.c (clarify_prohibited_class_
> * ira.c (clarify_prohibited_class_mode_regs): Prevent the
> function from accessing beyond the end of REGNO_REG_CLASS array by
> stopping the loop early.
Just fine (the ChangeLog only of course, the patch is Vlad's), thanks.
--
Eric Botcazou
> * ira.c (clarify_prohibited_class_mode_regs): It was running
> beyond the end of REGNO_REG_CLASS array. Fixed.
This isn't a valid ChangeLog entry. It must not state the "why" (it was
running beyond the end of REGNO_REG_CLASS array), only the "what". So you
need to describe how you're
