On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:36:19PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > For example, several targets would build/bootstrap and regtest fine with > > reload's find_valid_class() implemented as gcc_abort(). And guess what, > > there seems to be an off-by-one error in the outer loop exit condition. > > I think it is correct. According to the documentation in tm.texi, > N_REG_CLASSES should always be one larger than the last valid register > class. tm.texi does not require that NO_REGS == 0, so the loop is > arguably wrong in that way. In practice all machine descriptions do > define NO_REGS to be 0, and that should probably be documented as a > requirement.
My bad, I'm misremebering something here. I think that loop is fine. But the fact remanins that find_valid_class() doesn't get much, if any, testing. I had a few lines of code in it to log arguments and return value to a file, and the last time I check, only powerpc-unknown-eabispe ever produced any output. (The reason I put in the logging in the first place was that my 16-bit x86 port was tripping the assertions in find_valid_class(). But something changed enough that it isn't even called any more.) -- Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
