es and maybe not set up
to deal with 64bit address registers at all.
> Thanks. Paul.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 12:37 AM
> To: Paul Edwards ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: negative indexes
>
>
inal Message-
>From: Richard Biener
>Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 7:05 PM
>To: Paul Edwards ; Paul Edwards via Gcc ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>Subject: Re: negative indexes
>
>On March 14, 2021 6:55:32 AM GMT+01:00, Paul Edwards via Gcc
> wrote:
>>If I have code
Paul.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Edwards
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 7:12 PM
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org ; Richard Biener
Subject: Re: negative indexes
Hi Richard. Thanks for your reply, but if I understand
you correctly, you are saying this fix is for situations
where the size of an integ
eally understand
your answer. :-) ).
Thanks. Paul.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 7:05 PM
To: Paul Edwards ; Paul Edwards via Gcc ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: negative indexes
On March 14, 2021 6:55:32 AM GMT+01:00, Paul Edwards via Gcc
wrote:
On March 14, 2021 6:55:32 AM GMT+01:00, Paul Edwards via Gcc
wrote:
>If I have code like this:
>
>char foo(char *p)
>{
>return (p[-1]);
>}
>
>It generates a negative index, like this:
>
>* Function foo code
> L 2,=F'-1'
> L 3,0(11)
> SLR 15,15
> IC
