-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/30/11 10:51, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Nice cleanup thanks.  Just noticed a couple of things:
> 
> Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> writes:
>> *************** struct reload
>> *** 100,106 ****
>>     int inc;
>>     /* A reg for which reload_in is the equivalent.
>>        If reload_in is a symbol_ref which came from
>> !      reg_equiv_constant, then this is the pseudo
>>        which has that symbol_ref as equivalent.  */
>>     rtx in_reg;
>>     rtx out_reg;
>> --- 100,106 ----
>>     int inc;
>>     /* A reg for which reload_in is the equivalent.
>>        If reload_in is a symbol_ref which came from
>> !      reg_equiv_consant, then this is the pseudo
>>        which has that symbol_ref as equivalent.  */
>>     rtx in_reg;
>>     rtx out_reg;
> 
> Adds typo.
Yea.  I had changed the comment when I was using VEC_blah directly, then
introduced the typo when I went to using accessor macros and wanted to
change the comment back to its original form :(

I just checked in a fix for the typo.

> 
>> *************** elimination_effects (rtx x, enum machine
>> *** 3002,3011 ****
>>            }
>>   
>>      }
>> !       else if (reg_renumber[regno] < 0 && reg_equiv_constant
>> !           && reg_equiv_constant[regno]
>> !           && ! function_invariant_p (reg_equiv_constant[regno]))
>> !    elimination_effects (reg_equiv_constant[regno], mem_mode);
>>         return;
>>   
>>       case PRE_INC:
>> --- 2996,3006 ----
>>            }
>>   
>>      }
>> !       else if (reg_renumber[regno] < 0
>> !           && reg_equiv_constant (0)
>> !           && reg_equiv_constant (regno)
>> !           && ! function_invariant_p (reg_equiv_constant (regno)))
>> !    elimination_effects (reg_equiv_constant (regno), mem_mode);
>>         return;
>>   
>>       case PRE_INC:
> 
> Looks like this should be s/reg_equiv_constant (0)/reg_equivs != 0/.
I thought I'd fixed these.  I certainly remember looking at them and
thinking that can't be right at some point.  I'll look at it again more
closely tomorrow and take appropriate corrective action.

Thanks for the feedback,
Jeff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNk8ZSAAoJEBRtltQi2kC7+qYH/R0i1/YC3efnLuQjZ0uieuCU
0b/sMDvP+0xngPbKKn9YviBuNhUv2/poPG1OOOQtolHeZ5c8rftecZKMRgjtmX9W
jYxhuY2OLBBTLLPo4eFDdBbEP/m90RGEBtumeIx1isPTOjQ3LVuBF+9GB+wbnr/W
OLox1MSfPT7GV3pbBeSMiHiKkw5VOeFKd4vBIbefWAPgjO0G8LFexBYWkw04j1F5
tXbuLn/cnSb4PLoRgrCxDv4XS8Wzx1YJcFtcnjn+a2t1HPUARkSYCSn8o94Yytub
k263YKwgRsqwxnrXmGght4+K2kuVjitANa6iX24DWTa+eJBruQ9ObA/f3Xs1P5E=
=SgX4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to