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: Followup for reg_equiv_invariant patch: Fix PR39871

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at spamcop dot net>
Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:34:37 -0600
Subject: Re: Followup for reg_equiv_invariant patch: Fix PR39871
References: <4C16B0B4.6080604@codesourcery.com> <20100614223547.dwf4izvnn4s0wgcc-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net>

On 06/14/10 20:35, Joern Rennecke wrote:

Quoting Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com>:

Joern, any comments - do you recall any reason why this change would
have been intentional?


What happens if we have a (plus (REG:SI SP_REG) (symbol_ref foo)) ?
Or will this never happen for flag_pic?

I can't see how this would ever be valid when flag_pic.

Jeff

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Followup for reg_equiv_invariant patch: Fix PR39871
  - From: Joern Rennecke

References:
- Followup for reg_equiv_invariant patch: Fix PR39871
  - From: Bernd Schmidt
- Re: Followup for reg_equiv_invariant patch: Fix PR39871
  - From: Joern Rennecke

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