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 overzealous folding

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 16:32:24 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix overzealous folding
References: <200805161339.28049.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <200805272004.35556.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <483C5910.1040806@codesourcery.com> <200805282343.06318.ebotcazou@adacore.com>

Eric Botcazou wrote:

Right, but they shouldn't be optimized differently!  Performance
shouldn't depend on whether I use an "int" or an int-sized enum.

That's already very likely the case.

Even if so, there's no reason to make the problem worse!

There is nothing magic about ENUMERAL_TYPE; it's just an INTEGER_TYPE with limited range. There's nothing you can do with one that you can't with the other. In fact, I think it would be entirely reasonable for the gimplifier to eliminate it in favor of INTEGER_TYPE. It's really just a front-end construct.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix overzealous folding
  - From: Eric Botcazou

References:
- [PATCH] Fix overzealous folding
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH] Fix overzealous folding
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH] Fix overzealous folding
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [PATCH] Fix overzealous folding
  - From: Eric Botcazou

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