On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>> Ok with simply excluding SSA_NAMEs like
>>
>> @@ -4411,16 +4411,27 @@ gimplify_modify_expr_rhs (tree *expr_p,
>> /* It's OK to use the target directly if it's being
>> initialized. */
>> use_
Ok with simply excluding SSA_NAMEs like
@@ -4411,16 +4411,27 @@ gimplify_modify_expr_rhs (tree *expr_p,
/* It's OK to use the target directly if it's being
initialized. */
use_target = true;
- else if (TREE_CODE (*to_p) != SSA_NAME
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 01/05/12 09:36, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> As you suggested here:
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00232.html
>>>
>>> Bootregged on x86-64 Linux.
>>>
>>>
On 01/05/12 09:36, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
As you suggested here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00232.html
Bootregged on x86-64 Linux.
OK?
No, this pessimizes things too much at gimplification time, please simply
inline t
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> As you suggested here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00232.html
>
> Bootregged on x86-64 Linux.
>
> OK?
No, this pessimizes things too much at gimplification time, please simply
inline the predicate instead.
Richard.
As you suggested here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00232.html
Bootregged on x86-64 Linux.
OK?
* gimple.c (is_gimple_non_addressable): Remove.
* gimple.h: Remove is_gimple_non_addressable.
* gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_rhs): Use is_gimple_reg instead
