This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Strange missing tree constant propagation

From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:22:57 +0100
Subject: Re: Strange missing tree constant propagation
References: <200503101204.56741.stevenb@suse.de> <20050310112313.GA16354@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <38effe7d0020f25a766d09d853f9eb27@physics.uc.edu>

Hello,

> >I think I will try the later fix today (mostly because I no longer
> >remember what exactly were the problems that lead me to introducing
> >the TREE_OVERFLOW check to is_gimple_min_invariant).
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg00786.html
> And yes the testcase still fails when you remove TREE_OVERFLOW from
> is_gimple_min_invariant, at least it did three weeks ago when I tried
> this.

actually, it does not for me (after fixing a trivial problem in
find_taken_edge_cond_expr).  I am now bootstrapping and regtesting
the patch on every architecture I have access to.

Zdenek

References:
- Strange missing tree constant propagation
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: Strange missing tree constant propagation
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak
- Re: Strange missing tree constant propagation
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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