On 10/13/2017 10:08 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jeff Law writes:
>> On 08/24/2017 12:25 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:03AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This patch uses df_read_modify_subreg_p to check whether writing
>>>
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 05:08:51PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Yeah, I agree this'll change the handling of paradoxical subregs that
> occupy more words than the SUBREG_REG, but I think the new version is
> correct. The comment says:
>
> /* If the destination is anything other than CC
Jeff Law writes:
> On 08/24/2017 12:25 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:03AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch uses df_read_modify_subreg_p to check whether writing
to a subreg would preserve some of the existing conte
On 08/24/2017 12:25 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:03AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> This patch uses df_read_modify_subreg_p to check whether writing
>>> to a subreg would preserve some of the existing contents.
>>
>> combine does
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:03AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> This patch uses df_read_modify_subreg_p to check whether writing
>> to a subreg would preserve some of the existing contents.
>
> combine does not keep the DF info up-to-date -- but that is no
> prob
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:03AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This patch uses df_read_modify_subreg_p to check whether writing
> to a subreg would preserve some of the existing contents.
combine does not keep the DF info up-to-date -- but that is no
problem here, df_read_modify_subreg_p use
