------- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08 20:51 ------- Subject: Re: [PR target/20126, RFC] loop DEST_ADDR biv replacement may fail
On Apr 8, 2005, Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ahh, I now see the misunderstanding; you changed/fixed the other > "safe" gcc_assert statement, and missed the important one that I was > worried about. Sorry for the confusion. Yep. Doh! > Secondly: > + if (volatile_ok > + /* Make sure we're not adding or removing volatile MEMs. */ > + || for_each_rtx (loc, volatile_mem_p, 0) > + || for_each_rtx (&new, volatile_mem_p, 0) > + || ! insn_invalid_p (object)) > + return 0; > The suggestion wasn't just to reorder the existing for_each_rtx to > move these tests earlier, it was to confirm that the original "whole" > instruction had a volatile memory reference in it, i.e. that this is > a problematic case, before doing any more work. Aaah. Clearly, I wasn't thinking right when I made the change. I'll test your suggested change along with the gcc_assert fix. > Sorry again for the inconvenience, No worries. I shouldn't have rushed to making the changes and starting a bootstrap before going to bed on a night when I was so tired :-/ I'll post the patch when testing is complete. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20126
