On January 5, 2017 4:41:28 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: >> Coming back to this... > >> > Right, after h0 == h1 is missing && operand_equal_p (thenb, elseb, >0) >> > or so (the exact last operand needs to be figured out). >> > OEP_ONLY_CONST is certainly wrong, we want the same VAR_DECLs to >mean the >> > same thing. 0 is a tiny bit better, but still it will give up on >e.g. pure >> > and other calls. OEP_PURE_SAME is tiny bit better than that, but >still >> > calls with the same arguments to the same function will not be >considered >> > equal, plus likely operand_equal_p doesn't handle STATEMENT_LIST >etc. >> > So maybe we need another OEP_* mode for this. >> >> Yea, if I add "&& operand_equal_p (thenb, elseb, 0)" then this >warning doesn't >> trigger for certain cases, such as MODIFY_EXPR, RETURN_EXPR, probably >> STATEMENT_LIST and others. So I suppose I could introduce a new OEP_ >mode for >> this (names? OEP_EXTENDED?) and then in operand_equal_p in case >tcc_expression >> do >> >> case MODIFY_EXPR: >> if (flags & OEP_EXTENDED) >> // compare LHS and RHS of both >> >> ? > >Yeah. Not sure what is the best name for that. Maybe Richi has some >clever >ideas.
OEP_LEXICOGRAPHIC? Richard. > > Jakub
