This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Request for testing on fold-const.c patch
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: rth at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 04 18:49:46 EDT
- Subject: Re: Request for testing on fold-const.c patch
Indeed, I would even split up
> if ((!TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 2) || !TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 2))
> ? TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 2) != TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 2)
> : operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 2),
> TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 2), flags))
> return 0;
OK, that might be the heart of the ugliness since the style in that routine
is indeed to have "return" followed by a condition that tests all the operand.
I think the best approach would then be to put this complex condition in a
local macro called something like OPERAND_EQUAL_WITH_NULL_P and then make
these cases look like the others.
But I still need feedback from those who saw the random stuff to confirm
this isn't causing it to come back.