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][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:53:58 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data
References: <84fc9c000907101225w7a6b1cc1h19d2181c07303993@mail.gmail.com> <200910130802.38913.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <84fc9c000910130234k4336206ar24553ad67be93d7d@mail.gmail.com>

> Sure, but that's a different boolean_type_node then.  And I don't
> see a problem with that - do you?

Yes, I do, I don't see what will prevent an optimizer from rewriting a boolean 
expression, say a condition, originally in 8-bit boolean, into an equivalent 
boolean expression in 1-bit boolean; this will change the semantics of the 
code, admittedly in rare corner cases but still.

> I'm not convinced there is any breakage.  I guess you do not
> have a testcase as otherwise you'd have shown it already, no?

Right, I haven't found any yet.  But I nevertheless think that the hack should 
be eliminated sooner than later.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- Re: [PATCH][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data
  - From: Richard Guenther

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