Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I patched the code to only count the occurrence if the
locations are different. Any idea if that has adverse
consequences?
I would expect that to work. But before bringing it back to mainline
I'd like to find out why the loca
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I patched the code to only count the occurrence if the
> locations are different. Any idea if that has adverse
> consequences?
I would expect that to work. But before bringing it back to mainline
I'd like to find out why the locations are the same.
>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm trying to understand an assertion failure in reload1.c:8135.
In delete_output_reload(), I'm getting an assertion failure
in this code:
for (i1 = reg_equiv_alt_mem_list [REGNO (reg)]; i1; i1 = XEXP (i1, 1))
{
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to understand an assertion failure in reload1.c:8135.
>
> In delete_output_reload(), I'm getting an assertion failure
> in this code:
>
>for (i1 = reg_equiv_alt_mem_list [REGNO (reg)]; i1; i1 = XEXP (i1, 1))
> {
>gcc_assert
I'm trying to understand an assertion failure in reload1.c:8135.
In delete_output_reload(), I'm getting an assertion failure
in this code:
for (i1 = reg_equiv_alt_mem_list [REGNO (reg)]; i1; i1 = XEXP (i1, 1))
{
gcc_assert (!rtx_equal_p (XEXP (i1, 0), substed));
n_occurrences +
