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] Fix IV-opts so it no longer produces MEM[index:]

From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Andrew_Pinski at playstation dot sony dot com" <Andrew_Pinski at playstation dot sony dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:18:31 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix IV-opts so it no longer produces MEM[index:]
References: <20070801095236.GA13479@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <OF72556AE7.3C95EA07-ON8825732A.0074C33C-8825732A.00750104@playstation.sony.com> <de8d50360708070525o1ad49e57o8dd471adb41e81b0@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

> On 8/1/07, Andrew_Pinski@playstation.sony.com
> > No, this is why we are getting MEM[index:] as generic_type_for for pointer
> > types is unsigned_type_for and unsigned_type_for  returns the same size
> > integer as the pointer which is not what we want here really.  Maybe we
> > should return the pointer to void type instead?
> 
> Here is a new patch with an additional comment on why not converting
> to type is necessary/correct.  It also takes into account your comment
> about create_iv.
> 
> OK? Bootstrapped and tested on i386-apple-darwin8.10 with no regressions.

the tree-ssa-loop-manip.c and tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c pieces are OK.  I
think you did not fix the tree-affine.c part?

Zdenek

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix IV-opts so it no longer produces MEM[index:]
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak
- Re: [PATCH] Fix IV-opts so it no longer produces MEM[index:]
  - From: Andrew_Pinski
- Re: [PATCH] Fix IV-opts so it no longer produces MEM[index:]
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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