On May 4, 2012, at 16:16 , Richard Sandiford wrote: > Sorry, was going to test this earlier, but got distracted by > lower-subreg stuff.
No problem at all. I just happened to have had an opportunity to test as part of a series of miscellaneous other submissions. > I need to fix the subreg handling so that > we check whether the inner part of a SUBREG is a REG (done in > my copy at home). Indeed. That was in the original patch and I missed the difference in the alternate version. > I also wanted to make sure there were no > asm differences due to notes being wrongly dropped. Ah, nice :) Thanks much for your feedback, Olivier
