This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: validate_replace_rtx_1 fix version 3
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Subject: Re: validate_replace_rtx_1 fix version 3
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:34:08 -0700
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20000729171602.A18818@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20000802213328.R26939@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20000803214635.B14699@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 09:46:35PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> ! if (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 1)) == CONST_INT && XEXP (x, 1) == to)
> ! validate_change (object, loc, plus_constant (XEXP (x, 0), INTVAL (to)),
> ! 1);
> return;
>
> case MINUS:
> ! if (GET_CODE (to) == CONST_INT && XEXP (x, 1) == from)
> {
> validate_change (object, loc,
> plus_constant (XEXP (x, 0), - INTVAL (to)),
> --- 459,472 ----
> case PLUS:
> /* If we have a PLUS whose second operand is now a CONST_INT, use
> plus_constant to try to simplify it. */
> ! if (GET_CODE (to) == CONST_INT && rtx_equal_p (XEXP (x, 1), to))
What is the reason for this change? Constants are unique.
The rest of it looks ok.
r~