On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Ulrich Weigand <uweig...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > H.J. Lu wrote: >> > it doesn't work; >> > >> > allocation.f: In function 'allocation': >> > allocation.f:1048:0: internal compiler error: in subreg_get_info, at >> > rtlanal.c:3235 >> > Please submit a full bug report, >> > with preprocessed source if appropriate. >> > See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. > >> > since subreg_regno_offset only works on hard registers. > > Hmm, OK. That look like another latent bug in the original code ... > >> + if (r->mode != VOIDmode && GET_MODE (reloadreg) != r->mode) >> + reloadreg = gen_rtx_REG (r->mode, REGNO (reloadreg)); > > (As an aside, this is wrong; it's already wrong in the place where you > copied it from. This should now use reload_adjust_reg_for_mode just > like subst_reload does.) > >> + >> + if ((WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN || BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN) >> + && GET_MODE_SIZE (Pmode) > GET_MODE_SIZE (ptr_mode)) >> + { >> + offset = GET_MODE_SIZE (Pmode) - GET_MODE_SIZE (ptr_mode); >> + if (! BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN) >> + offset = (offset / UNITS_PER_WORD) * UNITS_PER_WORD; >> + else if (! WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN) >> + offset %= UNITS_PER_WORD; >> + } >> + else >> + offset = 0; >> + >> + return gen_rtx_SUBREG (ptr_mode, reloadreg, offset); >> >> works for me. > > This doesn't seem correct either, it completely ignores the SUBREG_BYTE > of the original SUBREG ... Also, I don't quite see why this should > have anything special for Pmode / ptr_mode. > > It seems simplest to just use simplify_gen_subreg here. Can you try > the following version? > > Thanks, > Ulrich > > > ChangeLog: > > * reload.c (struct replacement): Remove SUBREG_LOC member. > (push_reload): Do not set it. > (push_replacement): Likewise. > (subst_reload): Remove dead code. > (copy_replacements): Remove assertion. > (copy_replacements_1): Do not handle SUBREG_LOC. > (move_replacements): Likewise. > (find_replacement): Remove dead code. Use reload_adjust_reg_for_mode. > Detect subregs via recursive descent instead of via SUBREG_LOC. > >
It works much better. I am testing it now. Thanks. -- H.J.
