On 05/12/14 14:14, David Malcolm wrote:
You asked me to speak up if my factoring turned up a case where the
existing code might be broken - and I'm slightly nervous about the last
change above.
AIUI, the invariants that hold here are that we're walking the
singly-linked list of the (struct nb_it
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 13:55 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/21/14 10:57, David Malcolm wrote:
> > gcc/
> > * gimple.h (gimple_cond_make_false): Require a gimple_cond.
> > (gimple_cond_make_true): Likewise.
> >
> > * tree-cfg.c (fold_cond_expr_cond): Add a checked cast to
> > gimple_c
On 04/21/14 10:57, David Malcolm wrote:
gcc/
* gimple.h (gimple_cond_make_false): Require a gimple_cond.
(gimple_cond_make_true): Likewise.
* tree-cfg.c (fold_cond_expr_cond): Add a checked cast to
gimple_cond within region guarded by check for GIMPLE_COND.
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 11:37 -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-vrp.c b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> > index 902b879..62ec9f5 100644
> > --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> > @@ -9517,10 +9517,11 @@ fold_predicate_in (gimple_stmt_iterator *si)
> >else
> > {
> >
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vrp.c b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> index 902b879..62ec9f5 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> @@ -9517,10 +9517,11 @@ fold_predicate_in (gimple_stmt_iterator *si)
>else
> {
> gcc_assert (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_COND);
> + gimple_cond
gcc/
* gimple.h (gimple_cond_make_false): Require a gimple_cond.
(gimple_cond_make_true): Likewise.
* tree-cfg.c (fold_cond_expr_cond): Add a checked cast to
gimple_cond within region guarded by check for GIMPLE_COND.
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (ccp_fold_stmt): Likewi
