On 4/28/20 2:38 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > I think we should do this in cse_process_notes_1, both to avoid creating > an invalid MEM in the first place, and so that we handle embedded MEMs > correctly too. > > Also, the (const:P ...) ought to be there even outside of a MEM. E.g. we > ought to have: > > (set (reg X) (const:P (plus:P (symbol_ref:P S) (const_int D)))) > > rather than: > > (set (reg X) (plus:P (symbol_ref:P S) (const_int D)))
I wondered about things such as this, but I couldn't remember ever seeing a (const:P ...) wrapped around a constant expression before. Maybe I just wasn't looking for it??? > Adding a PLUS case would fix this example, but I guess a more general > fix would be to add a second switch statement (after the first) that > switches on GET_RTX_CLASS and uses logic like simplify_replace_fn_rtx: > > case RTX_BIN_ARITH: > case RTX_COMM_ARITH: > op0 = simplify_replace_fn_rtx (XEXP (x, 0), old_rtx, fn, data); > op1 = simplify_replace_fn_rtx (XEXP (x, 1), old_rtx, fn, data); > if (op0 == XEXP (x, 0) && op1 == XEXP (x, 1)) > return x; > return simplify_gen_binary (code, mode, op0, op1); Ok, I'll try this and see whether we survive bootstrap and regtesting. Thanks! Peter
