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][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data

From: Rafael Espindola <espindola at google 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>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:41:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data
References: <84fc9c000907101225w7a6b1cc1h19d2181c07303993@mail.gmail.com> <200910142256.57226.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <38a0d8450910141425o4c706351vec9d7dfbe85d334f@mail.gmail.com> <200910151528.49668.ebotcazou@adacore.com>

2009/10/15 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>:
>> We are not changing types behind the back. A FE is free to create
>> comparisons with a type of its choosing. So is the ME.
>
> What about the ME rewriting a comparison created by the FE into a new,
> logically equivalent comparison, changing the type in the process?

a bug in the ME? If it rewriting a comparison that produces a 128 bit
value,  the new comparison should also produce a 128 bit value.

> --
> Eric Botcazou
>

Cheers,
-- 
Rafael Ãvila de EspÃndola

References:
- Re: [PATCH][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data
  - From: Rafael Espindola
- Re: [PATCH][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data
  - From: Eric Botcazou

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