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 trunc_int_for_mode in eliminate_regs_in_insn (PR target/38208)

From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
To: "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:08:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix trunc_int_for_mode in eliminate_regs_in_insn (PR target/38208)
References: <20081121133313.GB17496@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <84fc9c000811210542h29834522vd477fef71af29f5a@mail.gmail.com> <6dc9ffc80811210545s370499f0h6e62ed9d37fe41e6@mail.gmail.com> <20081121134949.GD17496@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com>

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 05:45:46AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Don't branches have the same bug?
>
> Yes, but can you construct a testcase that breaks on those branches?
>

I don't have such a testcase.


-- 
H.J.

References:
- [PATCH] Fix trunc_int_for_mode in eliminate_regs_in_insn (PR target/38208)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Fix trunc_int_for_mode in eliminate_regs_in_insn (PR target/38208)
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix trunc_int_for_mode in eliminate_regs_in_insn (PR target/38208)
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: [PATCH] Fix trunc_int_for_mode in eliminate_regs_in_insn (PR target/38208)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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