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] eliminate TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:32:27 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eliminate TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW
References: <f865508f0903290709t386e05ecga0b4a6f2d01ef4d8@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c000903290718y4d3ed9edu12dece24e79e9acf@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c000903300218t4b8197d7r326a06d39eafa4f1@mail.gmail.com>

Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Kudos to all that did the hard work.  Here is the easy part. :-)
>> Ok.
> 
> It broke Ada.  Remember to extend your greps to ada/gcc-interface/ ...

No, it's really that the patch is older than this usage of
TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW (March 2008 vs. May 2008) and while I
bootstrapped it for safety, I was really thinking that no one was
introducing no new usages.  I don't know if this is a better or worse
justification.

Fixed as r145287 -- thanks for pointing out so the breakage lasted only
one hour.

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] eliminate TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH] eliminate TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW
  - From: Eric Botcazou

References:
- [PATCH] eliminate TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: [PATCH] eliminate TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] eliminate TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW
  - From: Richard Guenther

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