This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix up adjust_return_value_with_ops (PR tree-optimization/56539)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:28:19 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix up adjust_return_value_with_ops (PR tree-optimization/56539)
- References: <20130306164339.GX12913@tucnak.redhat.com> <5137BC91.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 03:00:49PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> Doesn't the code in update_accumulator_with_ops need the same
No, the difference is that it uses false as the next to last argument,
i.e. inserts after gsi, in which case GSI_CONTINUE_LINKING is desirable,
so that the stmt is inserted after that.
> Unrelated, but the block comment still refers to UPDATE,
> which is no longer a parameter.
> I see similar looking code in tree-inline.c::copy_bb... Does it
> need updating as well?
That is again false, GSI_CONTINUE_LINKING pair, i.e. insert after and update
gsi to point after the added stmts.