> -----Original Message----- > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- > ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of bin.cheng > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:13 PM > To: 'Bill Schmidt'; Yufeng Zhang; Yufeng Zhang > Cc: Richard Biener; GCC Patches > Subject: RE: [PATCH GCC]Catch more MEM_REFs sharing common addressing > part in gimple strength reduction > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 15:41 +0800, bin.cheng wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Bill Schmidt > <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > I rely on size_binop to convert T2 into sizetype, because T2' may be > in other kind of type. Otherwise there will be ssa_verify error later. > >> >> > >> >> OK, I see now. I had thought this was handled by fold_build2, but > >> >> apparently not. I guess all T2's formerly handled were already > >> >> sizetype as expected. Thanks for the explanation! > >> > > >> > So, wouldn't it suffice to change t2 to fold_convert (sizetype, t2) > >> > in the argument list to fold_build2? It's picking nits, but that > >> > would be slightly more efficient. > >> > >> Hi Bill, > >> > >> This is the 2nd version of patch with your comments incorporated. > >> Bootstrap and re-test on x86. Re-test on ARM ongoing. Is it ok if tests > pass? > > > > Looks good to me! Thanks, Bin. > > > > Sorry I have to hold on this patch since it causes several tests failed on > ARM. > Will investigate it and get back ASAP. > The reported failure is false alarm and happens on trunk too. I must have compared wrong testing results. Since there is no regression and the patch is approved before, I will apply it to trunk.
Thanks. bin
