On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 07:01:10PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 03/04/2016 06:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >I think we don't need to guarantee identical assembly, the reason I've
> >suggested that was if it passed, it would be much easier to verify.
> >Without that, I think it should be bootstrapped at least on one other
> >target. Note the cases you remove the parens aren't just || and &&, but
> >most likely also | and & (at least there is some flag whether to print those
> >as && or &). And there is code for the caching of the attributes where the
> >result is still usable, I believe the patch doesn't break that, but it
> >wouldn't hurt to verify that.
>
> Let's just defer it IMO. What do we care if other compilers are terminally
> broken? Let's use it as marketing material :)
Ok.
Jakub
