http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-07-30 08:47:35 UTC --- On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773 > > William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org > |gnu.org | > Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0 > > --- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> > 2012-07-29 16:54:45 UTC --- > I'll take this one. > > I think the assumption of operand placement is too embedded to tease out > easily, so I'm going to approach this by re-canonicalizing PLUS_EXPR, > POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, and MULT_EXPR when operand swapping has occurred. Are > there > other tree codes that could be broken? I don't think so
