On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:11:39PM +, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> On 8 November 2013 15:50, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Even with the gimple opts disabled, a const-const comparison would
> > normally be folded by the RTL expanders.
>
> Well, in this spirit, attached is another way to address the R
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> The question is whether you for example want to handle
>
> a_2 = 1 + 0;
>
> at RTL expansion time? I'd say it's better to have
I think we already handle that just fine, there are tons of various
simplify_gen_* calls during expa
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> In this case it's fold-all-builtins folding a strlen call with a
>> PHI <"foo", "bar"> argument. IMHO not presenting RTL with such
>> non-sense is best achieved by not letting TER do constant propagation
>> (because it doesn't "fold" the r
> In this case it's fold-all-builtins folding a strlen call with a
> PHI <"foo", "bar"> argument. IMHO not presenting RTL with such
> non-sense is best achieved by not letting TER do constant propagation
> (because it doesn't "fold" the result). We can never rule out such
> stray non-propagated c
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/08/13 07:45, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Joern Rennecke
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> bootstrapped / regtested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
>>
>>
>> Not a very elaborate description of the patch, eh? :-)
>>
>> This is IMHO not
On 8 November 2013 15:50, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Even with the gimple opts disabled, a const-const comparison would
> normally be folded by the RTL expanders.
Well, in this spirit, attached is another way to address the RTL side
of the problem.
As mention in the PR, the tree side of the problem
On 11/08/13 07:45, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
bootstrapped / regtested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Not a very elaborate description of the patch, eh? :-)
This is IMHO not OK without at least an explanation of why the
comparison of two const_ints is
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> > On 8 November 2013 14:45, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> >> This is IMHO not OK without at least an explanation of why the
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > On 8 November 2013 14:45, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> This is IMHO not OK without at least an explanation of why the
> >> comparison of two const_ints is not folded. Better y
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> On 8 November 2013 14:45, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> This is IMHO not OK without at least an explanation of why the
>> comparison of two const_ints is not folded. Better yet would be to fix
>> that underlying problem. We should not present such
On 8 November 2013 14:45, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> This is IMHO not OK without at least an explanation of why the
> comparison of two const_ints is not folded. Better yet would be to fix
> that underlying problem. We should not present such non-sense to the
> RTL parts of the middle end.
Which pa
On 8 November 2013 14:45, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Also would need a test case.
As is mentioned in the PR, we already have a test case, which shows a
regression.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> bootstrapped / regtested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Not a very elaborate description of the patch, eh? :-)
This is IMHO not OK without at least an explanation of why the
comparison of two const_ints is not folded. Better yet would be to fix
that
bootstrapped / regtested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
2013-11-08 Joern Rennecke
PR middle-end/59049
* expmed.c (emit_cstore): Avoid generating a comparison of two
VOIDmode constants.
Index: gcc/expmed.c
===
--- gc
14 matches
Mail list logo
