On 21/05/12 15:47, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 17/05/12 14:23, Jim MacArthur wrote:
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_ha
On 17/05/12 14:23, Jim MacArthur wrote:
> On 02/05/12 14:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Earnshaw writes:
>>> On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jim MacArthur writes:
> New Changelog text:
>
> 2012-05-02 Jim MacArthur
> * recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check bot
Jim MacArthur writes:
> On 02/05/12 14:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Earnshaw writes:
>>> On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jim MacArthur writes:
> New Changelog text:
>
> 2012-05-02 Jim MacArthur
> * recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and regno
On 02/05/12 14:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw writes:
On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jim MacArthur writes:
New Changelog text:
2012-05-02 Jim MacArthur
* recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and regno + offset are
hard registers.
Thanks. I still think t
Richard Earnshaw writes:
> On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Jim MacArthur writes:
>>> New Changelog text:
>>>
>>> 2012-05-02 Jim MacArthur
>>> * recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and regno + offset are
>>> hard registers.
>>
>> Thanks. I still think the final:
>>
>>> +
On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jim MacArthur writes:
>> New Changelog text:
>>
>> 2012-05-02 Jim MacArthur
>> * 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
Jim MacArthur writes:
> New Changelog text:
>
> 2012-05-02 Jim MacArthur
> * 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_
On 30/04/12 16:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw writes:
On 30/04/12 15:39, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw writes:
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw writes:
On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur wrote:
The current code in reg_fits_class_p appe
On 30/04/12 16:36, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw schrieb:
>> On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Earnshaw writes:
>>>
Jim MacArthur wrote:
> The current code in reg_fits_class_p appears to be incorrect; since
> offset may be negative, it's nec
Richard Earnshaw schrieb:
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw writes:
Jim MacArthur wrote:
The current code in reg_fits_class_p appears to be incorrect; since
offset may be negative, it's necessary to check both ends of the range
otherwise an array overrun or unde
Richard Earnshaw writes:
> On 30/04/12 15:39, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Earnshaw writes:
>>> On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw writes:
> On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur wrote:
>> The current code in reg_fits_class_p appears to be incorrect; sinc
On 30/04/12 15:39, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw writes:
>> On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Richard Earnshaw writes:
On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur wrote:
> The current code in reg_fits_class_p appears to be incorrect; since
> offset may be negative,
Richard Earnshaw writes:
> On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Earnshaw writes:
>>> On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur wrote:
The current code in reg_fits_class_p appears to be incorrect; since
offset may be negative, it's necessary to check both ends of the range
>>>
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw writes:
>> On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur wrote:
>>> The current code in reg_fits_class_p appears to be incorrect; since
>>> offset may be negative, it's necessary to check both ends of the range
>>> otherwise an array overrun or u
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw writes:
>> On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur wrote:
>>> The current code in reg_fits_class_p appears to be incorrect; since
>>> offset may be negative, it's necessary to check both ends of the range
>>> otherwise an array overrun or u
Richard Earnshaw writes:
> On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur wrote:
>> The current code in reg_fits_class_p appears to be incorrect; since
>> offset may be negative, it's necessary to check both ends of the range
>> otherwise an array overrun or underrun may occur when calling
>> in_hard_reg_set
On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur wrote:
> The current code in reg_fits_class_p appears to be incorrect; since
> offset may be negative, it's necessary to check both ends of the range
> otherwise an array overrun or underrun may occur when calling
> in_hard_reg_set_p. in_hard_reg_set_p should als
17 matches
Mail list logo
