This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Followup for reg_equiv_invariant patch: Fix PR39871
On 06/15/2010 08:00 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>:
>
>> On 06/14/10 20:35, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>>> Quoting Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com>:
>>>
>>>> Joern, any comments - do you recall any reason why this change would
>>>> have been intentional?
>>>
>>> What happens if we have a (plus (REG:SI SP_REG) (symbol_ref foo)) ?
>>> Or will this never happen for flag_pic?
>> I can't see how this would ever be valid when flag_pic.
>
> The question is if such invalid expressions might be in notes at these
> points; if that might be the case, the code needs to reject them.
>
> function_invariant_p will accept them.
I guess we can change that and not lose anything.
Bernd