> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > Sent: 20 December 2012 16:13 > To: Paulo Matos > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Fix PR55761 > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Paulo Matos <pma...@broadcom.com> wrote: > > 2012-12-20 Paulo Matos <pma...@broadcom.com> > > > > PR tree-optimization/55761 > > * tree-tailcall.c (process_assignment): Use build_int_cst only for > integral types, > > for every other type that managed to pass all conditions use > fold_build1. > > case NEGATE_EXPR: > if (FLOAT_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (op0))) > *m = build_real (TREE_TYPE (op0), dconstm1); > + else if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (non_ass_var))) > + *m = build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (non_ass_var), -1); > else > - *m = build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (op0), -1); > + *m = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (non_ass_var), > non_ass_var); > > looks bogus (op0 vs. non_ass_var).
Correct. My mistake applying same MINUS_EXPR pattern to NEGATE_EXPR case. > I'd rather use fold_unary here as I'm not > sure if callers handle a NEGATE_EXPR in *m. And I'd use that > unconditionally, > this last case looks like it will have very weak testing coverage. Thus, > > *m = fold_unary (NEGATE_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (op0), op0); > > and also in the MINUS_EXPR case. > Sounds reasonable. That would simplify it, it seems. Will fix patch and replace it in PR. > Richard.
