On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 08:36:31PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: >> > > That was my first patch, but it was rejected: >> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00271.html >> > >> > Then should we update fold_indirect_ref_1 to use the new code? Is >> > there a reason for them to stay out of sync? >> >> One of the reasons is that middle end uses poly_uint64 type but the front >> ends >> shouldn't use them. So some of these functions will unfortunately differ. > > Yeah. Part of the patch makes the two implementations slightly more > similar, but I have e.g. no idea how to test for poly_uint64 that fits > also in poly_int64 and the poly_int* stuff makes the two substantially > different in any case.
Hmm. Well, that seems rather unfortunate. Why shouldn't the front ends use them? Can we make an exception for this function because it's supposed to mirror a middle-end function? Should we try to push this function back into the middle end? Jason
