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, middle-end]: Fix PR 44569

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:31:14 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH, middle-end]: Fix PR 44569
References: <AANLkTi=pLZxn0zP1U5k4OABuu=sKiFutw7DdacyOVdQs@mail.gmail.com> <g4zktsxeyp.fsf@richards-desktop.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <AANLkTi=BXj0O5BnQz+_wE6cOCtyNYcs67-Qd01oKuXJz@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/02/2010 11:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:

>  Out of interest, is this canonical rtl?  I wasn't sure whether it
>  should be a const_vector instead.

We probably can end up with various non-canonical RTL in debug-insns
(like we can end up with non-gimple trees in debug statements).  Sad
but true.

If the choice is between a CONST_VECTOR and a CONCATN, a precise definition of the one that is incorrect (I don't know which) would be "wrong RTL" rather than "non-canonical RTL". :)

Paolo

References:
- Re: [PATCH, middle-end]: Fix PR 44569
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: [PATCH, middle-end]: Fix PR 44569
  - From: Richard Guenther

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