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.
On 17/05/12 14:23, Jim MacArthur wrote:
On 02/05/12 14:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshawrearn...@arm.com writes:
On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com writes:
New Changelog text:
2012-05-02 Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com
* recog.c
Jim MacArthur jim.macart...@arm.com writes:
On 02/05/12 14:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshawrearn...@arm.com writes:
On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com writes:
New Changelog text:
2012-05-02 Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com
*
On 02/05/12 14:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshawrearn...@arm.com writes:
On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com writes:
New Changelog text:
2012-05-02 Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com
* recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and
On 30/04/12 16:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshawrearn...@arm.com writes:
On 30/04/12 15:39, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshawrearn...@arm.com writes:
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshawrearn...@arm.com writes:
On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur
Jim MacArthur jim.macart...@arm.com writes:
New Changelog text:
2012-05-02 Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com
* 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 +
On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jim MacArthur jim.macart...@arm.com writes:
New Changelog text:
2012-05-02 Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com
* recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and regno + offset are
hard registers.
Thanks. I still think the final:
+
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com writes:
On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jim MacArthur jim.macart...@arm.com writes:
New Changelog text:
2012-05-02 Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com
* recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and regno + offset are
hard registers.
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 also
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com 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
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com 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
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com 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
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com writes:
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com 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
On 30/04/12 15:39, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com writes:
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com 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
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com writes:
On 30/04/12 15:39, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com writes:
On 30/04/12 15:07, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com writes:
On 26/04/12 14:20, Jim MacArthur wrote:
The current code in reg_fits_class_p
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
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 necessary to check both ends of
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 also be checked for each
register in the range of
18 matches
Mail list logo
