--- Comment #13 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-12-04 18:06 ---
This bug has been fixed, and not just hidden. Jeff Law's proposed solution to
this problem http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-01/msg01872.html which was proposed
in January 2002, was contained as part of Jeff/HP's patch of
--- 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 +, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-21
17:34 ---
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-21 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 00:34 +, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20
00:34 ---
The
--- 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
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 00:34
---
The testcase no longer exhibits the bug, so this PR seems to represent
some underlying problem with compiler internals rather than any longer
being concerned with the failure of a particular testcase.
Jeff
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-20 06:44
---
(In reply to comment #7)
With respect to: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-01/msg01872.html
and paradoxical subreg semantics on targets which support modes_tieable
(assuming that paradoxical subreg semantics
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-20 06:50
---
(In reply to comment #8)
- nor does it seem to make sence in any circumstance to referance a wider
logical value than may be stored in a register or memory, without presuming
it's higher-order bits are of
