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 up adjust_return_value_with_ops (PR tree-optimization/56539)

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:38:34 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix up adjust_return_value_with_ops (PR tree-optimization/56539)
References: <20130306164339.GX12913@tucnak.redhat.com> <5137BC91.5050600@redhat.com> <20130306232819.GY12913@tucnak.redhat.com>

On 03/06/2013 04:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 03:00:49PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:

Doesn't the code in update_accumulator_with_ops need the same
change?


No, the difference is that it uses false as the next to last argument,
i.e. inserts after gsi, in which case GSI_CONTINUE_LINKING is desirable,
so that the stmt is inserted after that.

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure -- I've never had to ponder how the GSI/BSI linking code works much.

Jeff

References:
- [PATCH] Fix up adjust_return_value_with_ops (PR tree-optimization/56539)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Fix up adjust_return_value_with_ops (PR tree-optimization/56539)
  - From: Jeff Law
- Re: [PATCH] Fix up adjust_return_value_with_ops (PR tree-optimization/56539)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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