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: Why doesn't operand_equal_p check pointer equality first?

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: law at redhat dot com
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:36:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Why doesn't operand_equal_p check pointer equality first?
References: <20050512171415.GA6176@topo.toronto.redhat.com> <20050512223738.GA8580@redhat.com> <1115943605.4538.245.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 18:20 -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 15:37 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:14:15PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > > Am I missing something here?
> > 
> > Probably not.
> Isn't operand_equal_p used in situations where we're eliminating
> instructions -- and isn't the TREE_SIDE_EFFECT bit there to prevent
> us from doing things like elimianting calls, volatiles and the like?

Yes, but Diego's asking why it doesn't do the pointer equality  (when !
TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS) check  *first*, he's not talking about removing it.


Diego translator to the stars,
Dan

References:
- Why doesn't operand_equal_p check pointer equality first?
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: Why doesn't operand_equal_p check pointer equality first?
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Why doesn't operand_equal_p check pointer equality first?
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

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