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 optimization regression in constant folder


> I see exactly 6 places in the middle-end that check TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE.  All
> of them in fold-const.c.  What I say is that if sizetypes are worth to
> be special for optimization, why don't optimization passes like VRP or =
> tree-ssa-reassoc.c not check for TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE?

Do they check for overflow properties?  If not, why should they check for
sizetype: the only difference is overflow properties.

> You seem to have a testcase that shows that re-association is very important
> for you for sizetypes.  Why can't you produce something out of it that you
> can show us?

I think Eric is working on that (these tend to be very large test
cases), but that's orthogonal to the definitional issue here.


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