> It would be nice if this kind of patch submission came with more
> analysis.
> As it stands, it feels like I have to look at the PR independently and see
> whether I come to the same conclusion.
Apologies, it was absolutely not my intention to cause you additional
work :/ On the contrary, I'll usually think twice before CC'ing you in
order not to bother you more often than "necessary".
Admittedly, I didn't look much further than the concatn, then verified
that return NULL does nothing harmful and figured that's all we need.
(And it isn't harmful, right? It is no comprehensive fix like yours, of
course.)
I gave your patch a spin and found that it still needs:
diff --git a/gcc/lower-subreg.cc b/gcc/lower-subreg.cc
index b304e25dce0..066d32bf56b 100644
--- a/gcc/lower-subreg.cc
+++ b/gcc/lower-subreg.cc
@@ -1270,7 +1270,7 @@ resolve_debug (rtx_insn *insn)
if (x)
*loc = x;
}
- if (resolve_reg_p (x))
+ if (x && resolve_reg_p (x))
{
*loc = copy_rtx (x);
DECOMPOSED_REGISTER_P (*loc) = false;
when simplify_subreg_concatn returns NULL we'll dereference it.
I'm re-testing with that change.
--
Regards
Robin
