https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #28 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #27) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #25) > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24) > > > First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has now a broader > > > usage (ARITH_OP_NOT_LITERAL_VALUE is a bit long, ARITH_OP_NOT_CONSTANT is > > > a > > > bit misleading, ARITH_OP_NOT_SIMPLIFIED not great either, any other > > > idea?). > > > > I think we should keep the enum ARITH_INVALID_TYPE for those cases where it > > is appropriate, > > Are there such cases remaining? It seems that that value can't be returned > any more. Actually there is the fix for pr107217, and I found a couple of other similar cases involving comparisons and logicals which are not yet handled. I will submit a patch. > > I was contemplating either ARITH_NOT_REDUCED or > > ARITH_CANNOT_REDUCE, > > and opted for the latter. > > > I have a slight preference for the former but let's go with the latter if you > prefer. But please add a comment describing it in the definition. > Most enum values have an obvious meaning there, this one less so. Will do. > > > Second, I'm wondering whether the check in reduce_binary_aa shouldn't be > > > moved to reduce binary where it would be more clear. > > > > I agree that it is preferable to have checks already in reduce_binary, see > > updated patch. After this one could remove the check from reduce_binary_aa, > > as it would be redundant. > > > And there is a redundant check in reduce_unary as well. True. I will submit an updated patch.
