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: [PATCH] Fix PR26898, 2nd try

From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: "Richard Guenther" <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:14:06 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR26898, 2nd try
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603310959540.6703@t148.fhfr.qr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603311204090.27869@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

On 3/31/06, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> I take it that at this point in folding it is guaranteed that the
> constants are non-negative, i.e. you don't have to deal with "X + -1" or
> "X - -1"?

Hmm I thought they were canonicalized - but now I verified they are not.
*sigh*  Are there any problems with treating X - -1 as X + 1?

Richard.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR26898, 2nd try
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR26898, 2nd try
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

References:
- [PATCH] Fix PR26898, 2nd try
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR26898, 2nd try
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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