------- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-22 16:58 ------- Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 17:34 +0000, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: > ------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-21 > 17:34 ------- > Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, law at redhat dot com wrote: > > > > Jeff Law had a patch at <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-01/msg01872.html>. > > > The discussion doesn't indicate anything in particular wrong with it, > > > was there some reason it wasn't applied? > > I don't think we ever came to a solid decision about which approach > > was better. My patch was simpler, but there may have been other > > cases that Alan's patch handled that mine didn't. > > > > I do think we all agreed that (subreg (mem)) was evil :-) > > > > I think the fact that unrelated changes masked all these issues and > > as a result this has been largely ignored for the last few years. > > Perhaps we should apply both patches to eliminate this latent bug or bugs > and allow the PR to be closed? (After 4.0 branches given that the bug is > apparently latent at present so we shouldn't need to risk these patches in > 4.0.) Yea, I'd do it post 4.0. I probably wouldn't even remember what changes caused the bugs to go latent -- it's been that long :( jeff -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5169
