This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- Cc: GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:47:14 -0700
- Subject: Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <6BFC7E80-68B3-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com>, Dale Johannesen wr
ites:
>On Feb 26, 2004, at 3:25 PM, law@redhat.com wrote:
>> In message <3F7FB8C0-68B0-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com>, Dale
>> Johannesen wr
>> ites:
>>>
>>> rtx recog_operand[MAX_RECOG_OPERANDS];
>>> register rtx *ro = &recog_operand[0];
>>> rtx x2;
>>> ro[0] = x2;
>>>
>>> /* Fold *&B to B. */
>>> if (integer_zerop (offset))
>>> return base;
>> I must still be missing something. If OFFSET is zero, then why is
>> returning
>> BASE wrong?
>
>Because it's an array, so you get array = scalar.
Ahhh. Then we ought to have a type test before returning base in that
code.
>> If OFFSET is nonzero, then we'll fall out returning NULL_TREE which
>> indicates that we couldn't simplify -- which ought to just inhibit
>> an optimization.
>
>Actually, I applied the fix rth suggested and now get an abort earlier
>building 176.gcc.
>Stay tuned.
OK. Eagerly awaiting the next issue.