This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: pr26026: udiv and umod optimization

From: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:10:26 +0000
Subject: Re: pr26026: udiv and umod optimization
References: <17379.30955.436649.904253@zapata.pink> <200602031549.k13Fnjdf003769@earth.phy.uc.edu> <17379.32393.912056.801361@zapata.pink>

> Can we be sure that this assumption is safe in _all_ the languages
> that gcc supports?  I get worried when C-isms creep into generic
> optimizers.

I think we already make this assumption in other places, not least when 
expanding to RTL.

Paul

Follow-Ups:
- Re: pr26026: udiv and umod optimization
  - From: Alan Modra

References:
- Re: pr26026: udiv and umod optimization
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: pr26026: udiv and umod optimization
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: pr26026: udiv and umod optimization
  - From: Andrew Haley

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]