http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oups, I didn't notice you had already worked on this. Please don't hesitate to
post (and ping) your patch to gcc-patches next time. Also, I didn't touch
tree-tailcall.c, that might
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
--- Comment #11 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
No worries Marc, that's fine. The most important thing is that's fixed. I did
post the patch to patches@ but haven't actually pinged. I tend to forget about
them myself.
Thanks for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
--- Comment #12 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
Also, I haven't touched tree-tailcall.c on my patches but I can't see why you
would need to do it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
--- Comment #6 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com 2013-01-22 15:30:48
UTC ---
I have some further patches that replace the previously posted ones that I will
upload soon. Should these also be sent to gcc-patches or it's unnecessary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29014|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29251|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
--- Comment #1 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com 2012-12-20 15:53:48
UTC ---
This happens for the negate_expr case too in the same switch.
I have a patch to fix this that I will upload momentarily.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
--- Comment #3 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com 2012-12-20 16:01:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 29014
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29014
Use built_int_cst only for integral types, otherwise use fold_build1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
--- Comment #4 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com 2012-12-20 16:58:08
UTC ---
I created a new patch from your comment to gcc-patches:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-tailcall.c b/gcc/tree-tailcall.c
index 5b1fd2b..8c7d142 100644
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761
--- Comment #5 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com 2012-12-20 17:06:04
UTC ---
As per previous comments, I looks at build_one_cst and implemented
build_minus_one_cst:
tree
build_minus_one_cst (tree type)
{
switch (TREE_CODE
12 matches
Mail list logo
