This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[commited] Fix incorrectly reversed conditional
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:53:06 +0200
- Subject: [commited] Fix incorrectly reversed conditional
Hi,
it seems to be my fault - apparently while updating the patch I reversed
the test incorrectly.
Honza
2004-09-25 Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
* tree-inline.c (expand_call_inline): Fix incorrectly reversed
conditional.
Index: tree-inline.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/tree-inline.c,v
retrieving revision 1.143
diff -c -3 -p -r1.143 tree-inline.c
*** tree-inline.c 23 Sep 2004 00:51:40 -0000 1.143
--- tree-inline.c 23 Sep 2004 19:59:56 -0000
*************** expand_call_inline (tree *tp, int *walk_
*** 1458,1464 ****
where previous inlining turned indirect call into direct call by
constant propagating arguments. In all other cases we hit a bug
(incorrect node sharing is most common reason for missing edges. */
! gcc_assert (dest->needed || flag_unit_at_a_time);
cgraph_create_edge (id->node, dest, t)->inline_failed
= N_("originally indirect function call not considered for inlining");
goto egress;
--- 1458,1464 ----
where previous inlining turned indirect call into direct call by
constant propagating arguments. In all other cases we hit a bug
(incorrect node sharing is most common reason for missing edges. */
! gcc_assert (dest->needed || !flag_unit_at_a_time);
cgraph_create_edge (id->node, dest, t)->inline_failed
= N_("originally indirect function call not considered for inlining");
goto egress;