This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: PR 19650
- From: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:31:49 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFC: PR 19650
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0501281620520.26426-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
On Jan 28, 2005, at 3:30 PM, Roger Sayle wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Dale Johannesen wrote:
On Jan 28, 2005, at 3:44 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
That seems to solve the bootstrap problem and the original failure.
I'll run it through more testing. Thanks.
And now I get a bootstrap comparison failure <sigh>, I'll track it
down.
Can you check if using TREE_OPERAND (t, 0) in both clauses fixes the
problem?
Sure, but from what you and Dan are saying, it won't.
Actually I think I reversed it and what is really wanted is
@@ -6466,7 +6474,8 @@ fold (tree expr)
if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == COND_EXPR || COMPARISON_CLASS_P (arg0))
{
tem = fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg (code, type, arg0,
arg1,
-
/*cond_first_p=*/1);
+ /*cond_first_p=*/1,
+ TREE_TYPE
(TREE_OPERAND (t, 1)));
if (tem != NULL_TREE)
return tem;
}
@@ -6474,7 +6483,8 @@ fold (tree expr)
if (TREE_CODE (arg1) == COND_EXPR || COMPARISON_CLASS_P (arg1))
{
tem = fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg (code, type, arg1,
arg0,
-
/*cond_first_p=*/0);
+ /*cond_first_p=*/0,
+ TREE_TYPE
(TREE_OPERAND (t, 0)));
if (tem != NULL_TREE)
return tem;
}
that is, the original type of the 4th operand, but probably that won't
matter either.