On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:09:42AM +0100, Hari Sandanagobalane wrote:
> The REGNO_REG_CLASS is generally an array of size
> FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER. So, the indexes go from 0 to
> FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER-1.
That is true.
> I think the ">=" condition is fine in that
> case. Do you agree?
That is wrong. It is perfectly fine to handle hard reg with
regno (FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER - 1) if it has nregs 1, or
hard reg with regno (FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER - 2) if it has nregs 1 or 2.
The following loop starts with nregs--, therefore for
hard_regno + nregs == FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER at the place of your test
REGNO_REG_CLASS will be used in the loop for hard_regno + nregs - 1
down to hard_regno + 0.
> >
> >With this change, the patch is ok. Thanks for the patch.
> >
> >>+ {
> >>+ SET_HARD_REG_BIT (ira_prohibited_class_mode_regs[cl][j],
> >>+ hard_regno);
> >>+ continue;
> >>+ }
> >> pclass = ira_pressure_class_translate[REGNO_REG_CLASS
> >>(hard_regno)];
> >> for (nregs-- ;nregs>= 0; nregs--)
> >> if (((enum reg_class) pclass
> >
Jakub
