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]

Re: [patch] combine.c if_then_else_cond() subreg modes

To: Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com
Subject: Re: [patch] combine.c if_then_else_cond() subreg modes
From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:26:26 -0500
CC: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <13801.979099904@upchuck><13801.979099904@upchuck> <5.0.2.1.2.20010110130318.02cb82f0@mail.lauterbach.com>


> After some discussion I came up with a different patch which fixes
> the testcase as well, but I couldn't convince myself yet if it's OK
> to compare the mode sizes or if I must compare the modes themselves
> for equality.

const_ints don't have modes (well, they're VOIDmode) so there is no
mode to compare.  That's why everyone has to do special things to keep
track of the mode a const_int is supposed to be.

The bug I'm tracking down doesn't go anywhere near cse.c, though.
It's all in combine.c.  Even if some other patch "fixed" my testcase,
I still think the code in if_then_else_cond() is wrong.

References:
- Re: [patch] combine.c if_then_else_cond() subreg modes
  - From: Jeffrey A Law
- Re: [patch] combine.c if_then_else_cond() subreg modes
  - From: Franz Sirl

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