This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix powerpc bootstrap when using --enable-checking=rtl
- From: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:57:56 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix powerpc bootstrap when using --enable-checking=rtl
- References: <20061111055210.GB5018@vnet.ibm.com> <200611201653.kAKGrZV39604@makai.watson.ibm.com>
On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 11:53 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> + for (i = 0; i < XVECLEN (pat, 0); i++)
> + if (is_store_insn1 (XVECEXP (pat, 0, i)))
> + return XVECEXP (pat, 0, i);
> Is it overly wasteful to call is_store_insn1() here? PAT already
> is known to be a PARALLEL and I don't think one can have recursive
> PARALLELs. I guess the abstraction isn't horrible.
Ok, I'll remove is_store_insn1() which contains the redundant test, and
use the following instead:
for (i = 0; i < XVECLEN (pat, 0); i++)
rtx inner_pat = XVECEXP (pat, 0, i);
if (GET_CODE (inner_pat) == SET
&& is_mem_ref (SET_DEST (inner_pat)))
> + }
> + /* We shouldn't get here, because we should have either a simple
> + store insn or a store with update which are covered above. */
> + gcc_assert (0);
> Should't this be gcc_unreachable()?
Ah yes, that would be better. I'll make those two changes and retest.