On February 8, 2016 7:07:46 PM GMT+01:00, Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 02/08/2016 12:38 PM, Michael Matz wrote: >> >> I think the patch makes perfect sense. ira_setup_alts should have no >> observable behaviour from the outside, except the returned value of >merged >> acceptable alternatives. Certainly it has no business to fiddle with >> recog_data. It only does the swapping to merge alternatives, and >> accidentaly left them swapped; the merging could have been >implemented >> without swapping recog_data.operands, and then the whole issue >wouldn't >> have occurred (and addr-sel-1.c wouldn't have been added because it >still >> would be "broken"). >> >Sorry, I was confused by Richard's message thinking that his patch >actually exchanges the operands. I think we have some expression >shaping optimizations and exchanging operands probably rejects the >optimization effect. With this point of view ira-costs.c should not >exchange operands. So the patch is not bogus as Richard wrote but >perfectly legitimate.
Yes, I meant the posted alternative patch that just unswapped for the cases that Andreas patch changed whether we consider swapping or not. The applied patch indeed makes perfect sense. Richard.
