[PATCH] Fix PR35607, another revenge of invariant addresses (ivopts)

[Diego Novillo]

On 03/17/08 10:46, Richard Guenther wrote:

> Otherwise TREE_INVARIANT is suspiciously
> unused and we might be able to get rid of it completely (and maybe
> replace it by marking possibly-invariant address DECLs to avoid
> the costly checks there).

You mean a caching mechanism for is_gimple_invariant_address?  I guess, 
but first we'd have to find a significant slowdown with your patch. 
Caching invariantness is what brought us to this point.

> 2008-03-17  Richard Guenther  <rguenther@suse.de>
> 
> 	* tree-gimple.h (is_gimple_invariant_address): Declare.
> 	(is_gimple_constant): Likewise.
> 	* tree-gimple.c (is_gimple_constant): New function.
> 	(is_gimple_invariant_address): Likewise.
> 	(is_gimple_min_invariant): Implement in terms of is_gimple_constant
> 	and is_gimple_invariant_address.
> 	* tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (expand_simple_operations): Revert
> 	previous change.

Looks OK now.


Thanks.  Diego.