On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 21:55 -0700, Roger Sayle wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > This is *already* wrong, AFAICT, because reg:QI 58 is uninitialized, and
> > we are trying to use it's value. Why do we do this?
>
> This may have been a rhetorical question, but the
Hi Dan,
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> This is *already* wrong, AFAICT, because reg:QI 58 is uninitialized, and
> we are trying to use it's value. Why do we do this?
This may have been a rhetorical question, but the middle-end's RTL
expanders are generating uses of uninitialized reg
