This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] Fix PR tree-optimization/86659
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 12:17:36 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix PR tree-optimization/86659
- References: <2153499.tvKfKlq6V1@polaris> <1971398.4yZklNspeW@polaris> <CAFiYyc12pvuQKBSBg8QOXnLaEsw46fhW7C4xgOqCVb3xid6UjA@mail.gmail.com> <2760656.PGVC6GL29Z@polaris>
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 10:29 AM Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> > So I wonder why it is necessary to track 'reverse' in gimple_match_op
> > at all given we bail out without optimizing as far as I can see?
>
> Because of the valueization? If it is done, gimple_simplify returns true so
> the result will be synthetized from res_op by means of maybe_build_generic_op.
> That's what I was referring to in the opening message by "the underlying issue
> of the missing propagation of the flag during GIMPLE folding".
Ah, indeed.
Patch is OK - sorry for the confusion.
Richard.
> --
> Eric Botcazou