IMA vs tree-ssa

[law@redhat.com]

In message <6BFC7E80-68B3-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com>, Dale Johannesen wr
ites:
 >On Feb 26, 2004, at 3:25 PM, law@redhat.com wrote:
 >> In message <3F7FB8C0-68B0-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com>, Dale 
 >> Johannesen wr
 >> ites:
 >>>
 >>> rtx recog_operand[MAX_RECOG_OPERANDS];
 >>>   register rtx *ro = &recog_operand[0];
 >>>   rtx x2;
 >>>       ro[0] = x2;
 >>>
 >>>       /* Fold *&B to B.  */
 >>>       if (integer_zerop (offset))
 >>>         return base;
 >> I must still be missing something.  If OFFSET is zero, then why is 
 >> returning
 >> BASE wrong?
 >
 >Because it's an array, so you get array = scalar.
Ahhh.  Then we ought to have a type test before returning base in that
code.  


 >> If OFFSET is nonzero, then we'll fall out returning NULL_TREE which
 >> indicates that we couldn't simplify -- which ought to just inhibit
 >> an optimization.
 >
 >Actually, I applied the fix rth suggested and now get an abort earlier 
 >building 176.gcc.
 >Stay tuned.
OK.  Eagerly awaiting the next issue.