Re: patch ping

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

> 
> Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:
> 
> > I thought that I would not have to ping patches any more
> > with the patch queue but I am wrong, oh well.
> > 
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00879.html
> > [PATCH] Fix PR middle-end/22429, fold building tree which depends on signed overflow
> > 
> > This fixes one of the wrong-code regressions in 4.1, basicially
> > fold was building a tree which depends on signed overflowing
> > being defined as wrapping which is only true with -fwrapv.
> 
> Setting etype to TREE_TYPE (etype) looks wrong to me.  And I suspect
> that the reason you have to do it is that your patch doesn't set value
> back to zero.  The old code would work because it checks TREE_OVERFLOW
> again.  But your patch effectively does not--it is possible for value
> to fall through without TREE_OVERFLOW being set.
> 
> Also, I think the patch makes the code more confusing.  In the case of
> flag_wrapv && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type), the first computation of value is
> of no importance.
> 
> How about something like this?  I haven't tested it.
This works except it introduces two Ada test failures,  I am going to look
into them.  They are both ICEs.

-- Pinski