Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> writes:
> + case PLUS:
> + current_or = or_attr_value (XEXP (exp, 0));
> + if (current_or != -1)
> + {
> + int n = current_or;
> + current_or = or_attr_value (XEXP (exp, 1));
> + if (current_or != -1)
> + current_or += n;
> + }
> + break;
This doesn't look right. Doing the same for IOR and |= would be OK
in principle, but write_attr_value doesn't handle IOR yet.
OK with the above dropped, thanks.
Richard
PS. current write_attr_value doesn't seem to handle operator precedence
properly, but that's orthogonal.
