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] Optimize COND_EXPR where then/else operands are INTEGER_CSTs of different size than the comparison operands

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Ira Rosen <ira dot rosen at linaro dot org>
Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:28:50 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize COND_EXPR where then/else operands are INTEGER_CSTs of different size than the comparison operands
References: <20111006161750.GE19412@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <CAKSNEw5UMT3NM_CEXv0u8cPj359LATaFsAw4m7jvSCGAdXRM3w@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 07:27:28PM +0200, Ira Rosen wrote:
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? i = 1;
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((rhs_code == COND_EXPR || rhs_code == VEC_COND_EXPR)
> 
> I don't understand why we need VEC_COND_EXPR here.

Only for completeness, as VEC_COND_EXPR is the same weirdo thingie like
COND_EXPR.  I can leave that out if you want.

	Jakub

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Optimize COND_EXPR where then/else operands are INTEGER_CSTs of different size than the comparison operands
  - From: Ira Rosen

References:
- [PATCH] Optimize COND_EXPR where then/else operands are INTEGER_CSTs of different size than the comparison operands
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Optimize COND_EXPR where then/else operands are INTEGER_CSTs of different size than the comparison operands
  - From: Ira Rosen

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