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] fold-const.c: Don't handle ASSERT_EXPR.

From: Kazu Hirata <kazu at cs dot umass dot edu>
To: roger at eyesopen dot com
Cc: dnovillo at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:42:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [patch] fold-const.c: Don't handle ASSERT_EXPR.
References: <20050418.102024.109084299.kazu@cs.umass.edu><Pine.LNX.4.44.0504180946310.24555-100000@www.eyesopen.com>

Hi Roger,

> > 	PR tree-optimization/21047
> > 	* fold-const.c (fold): Don't handle ASSERT_EXPR.
> 
> You're right that this code in fold is dead and should be removed,
> but wouldn't it be better to also move it to fold_binary, so that
> it will be triggered if VRP (or anyone) else calls fold with an
> ASSERT_EXPR.  For many tree codes, the transformations in "fold"
> serve as a form of documentation of their semantics.

Err, ASSERT_EXPR lives only during VRP.  Plus (quote from my original
message),

  Second, AFAICT, VRP never calls fold on ASSERT_EXPR.  It does call
  on ASSERT_EXPR_COND, but that's just a tcc_comparison, which fold
  handles fine via fold_binary.

So I don't think it's a good idea to just move the dead code.

Kazu Hirata

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] fold-const.c: Don't handle ASSERT_EXPR.
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- [patch] fold-const.c: Don't handle ASSERT_EXPR.
  - From: Kazu Hirata
- Re: [patch] fold-const.c: Don't handle ASSERT_EXPR.
  - From: Roger Sayle

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