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] PR c/8439


On Friday 08 November 2002 18:04, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > --- gcc/recog.c.orig    Fri Nov  8 12:41:35 2002
> > +++ gcc/recog.c Fri Nov  8 13:13:22 2002
> > @@ -522,10 +522,10 @@
> >      {
> >      case PLUS:
> >        /* If we have a PLUS whose second operand is now a CONST_INT, use
> > -         plus_constant to try to simplify it.
> > +         simplify_gen_binary to try to simplify it.
> >           ??? We may want later to remove this, once simplification is
> >           separated from this function.  */
> > -      if (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 1)) == CONST_INT)
> > +      if (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 1)) == CONST_INT && XEXP (x, 1) == to)
> >         validate_change (object, loc,
> >                          simplify_gen_binary
> >                          (PLUS, GET_MODE (x), XEXP (x, 0), XEXP (x, 1)),
> > 1);
> >
> > I can bootstrap/regtest it if you think this approach is correct (even on
> > the  branch).
>
> That seems like a good strategy.  Try it, and check it in if it passes.
>
> But put it only on the mainline; if we do a GCC 3.2.2 we can consider
> moving it then.

OK for the branch, provided that it passes bootstrapping/regtesting ?

-- 
Eric Botcazou


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