> Does it hurt to punt on nested SUBREG (it isn't really punting, just passing
> SET instead of COMPARE, which means avoiding the and with power of two and
> some make_extraction details), when usually the nested subregs should be
> already simplified and thus the reason I want it there is just to
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 10:13:17AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > My understanding is that in_code == COMPARE (as opposed to
> > in_code == SET) is mostly harmless, just tells make_extraction
> > to no longer special case zero extraction at position 0, but there is one
> > exception - AND with con
> My understanding is that in_code == COMPARE (as opposed to
> in_code == SET) is mostly harmless, just tells make_extraction
> to no longer special case zero extraction at position 0, but there is one
> exception - AND with constant power of two CONST_INT.
> If we have
> make_compound_operation (
Hi!
As described in the PR, in some cases it is unsafe for
make_compound_operation, if called with in_code == COMPARE,
to pass through that value to make_compound_operation on
the SUBREG_REG of a SUBREG.
My understanding is that in_code == COMPARE (as opposed to
in_code == SET) is mostly harmless
