This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR c/8439
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:39:27 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR c/8439
- References: <7850000.1036775092@warlock.codesourcery.com>
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