DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > reg_overlap_mentioned_for_reload_p() assumes that all SUBREGs > have REGs as their operand. However, register_operand() has > this comment: > > (Ideally, (SUBREG (MEM)...) should not exist after reload, > but currently it does result from (SUBREG (REG)...) where the > reg went on the stack.) */ > > When this happens during reload, reg_overlap_mentioned_for_reload_p() > blindly takes the REGNO of a MEM and later on aborts. The patch below > at least treats (subreg (mem)) the same as (mem) for this function, > and gcc does the right thing later on anyway. The question is: does > finding a (subreg (mem)) at this point indicate that something is > wrong with my port (m32c)? Or is reload actually wrong here? If > reload is wrong, is this the right way to deal with these?
Reload can temporarily produce a SUBREG of a MEM if, as the comment says, the insn has a SUBREG of a REG, and the REG is turned into a memory address. But before approving this patch, can you say something about what calls reg_overlap_mentioned_for_reload_p in this case? There are a number of places in reload which assume that a SUBREG is only of a REG. Ian
