On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 14:08 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/30/2009 11:22 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
P.S: Richard, if you have a suggestion along the lines of what
you proposed in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi#c22 ,
please don't hesitate to say so.
Richi had meant
step_sign = fold_build3 (COND_EXPR, type,
fold_build2 (LT_EXPR, boolean_type_node, step,
build_int_cst (type, 0)),
build_int_cst (type, -1), build_int_cst (type, 1));
I.e. "step_size = (step< 0 ? -1 : 1)".
That would have worked as well, also for folding, I see. I am a bit
surprised because the version with the if didn't work.
If anybody shows that this version is better than what I committed, this
is a trivial enough change that can be done easily.
Thomas