This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again

From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:21:18 -0400
Subject: Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again
References: <200809192352.m8JNq7Xs003011@greed.delorie.com> <200809302220.m8UMKIPj008507@greed.delorie.com> <84fc9c000810011511g56d55554oc1321be55bec411f@mail.gmail.com> <200810012243.m91MhdlG028543@greed.delorie.com> <84fc9c000810020212t2b910f2fi9ebc27bacd4ff4d@mail.gmail.com> <200810021622.m92GMHJK017096@greed.delorie.com> <200810021850.m92Ioexf021620@greed.delorie.com> <84fc9c000810021409rf3f352ak83d2db6520e6fc63@mail.gmail.com>

> Ok, I just looked for POINTER_PLUS_EXPR and tried to make sure its
> offset is always sign-extended.  Can you check where on the call
> path above we miss this special treatment?

It looks like it drops past them all and gets the generic treatment,
just before the MINUS_EXPR case.

References:
- Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again
  - From: Richard Guenther

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