Do you want me to post another revision with
the gimple_assign_single_p test removed?
I think remove that hunk, bootstrap, test, commit and post for archival
purposes. I do not think another round of review is necessary.
Done in r274486 (also attached).
I should add that the early store merg
On 8/12/19 1:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/9/19 5:42 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -3408,7 +3457,13 @@ static bool
}
gimple *stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (exp);
- if (gimple_code (stmt) != GIMPLE_PHI)
+ if (gimple_assign_single_p (stmt))
+ {
+ tree rhs = gimple_assign_
On 8/9/19 5:42 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> @@ -3408,7 +3457,13 @@ static bool
>>> }
>>> gimple *stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (exp);
>>> - if (gimple_code (stmt) != GIMPLE_PHI)
>>> + if (gimple_assign_single_p (stmt))
>>> + {
>>> + tree rhs = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt);
On 8/8/19 7:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/31/19 6:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
More extensive testing of the last week's strlen patch for
PR91183 on various non-mainstream targets and with better tests
has exposed a few gaps and a couple of bugs. The attached patch
addresses all in one change. I c
On 7/31/19 6:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> More extensive testing of the last week's strlen patch for
> PR91183 on various non-mainstream targets and with better tests
> has exposed a few gaps and a couple of bugs. The attached patch
> addresses all in one change. I considered splitting it up but
More extensive testing of the last week's strlen patch for
PR91183 on various non-mainstream targets and with better tests
has exposed a few gaps and a couple of bugs. The attached patch
addresses all in one change. I considered splitting it up but
in the end decided the changes were small and s
