On 08/24/05 13:40, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Alternatively, i can just add the "no resort" interface.
(or of course, write the ugly code to keep rechecking which operands got
switched after each call to update_stmt :P)
I'd prefer
> The auto-canonicalization does present some problems. No doubt about
> that. However, I was added specifically because it was allowing us
> to eliminate more useless crud. IIRC it was comparison elimination
> that primarily benefited from auto canonicalization.
I think that part may have been
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Alternatively, i can just add the "no resort" interface.
> (or of course, write the ugly code to keep rechecking which operands got
> switched after each call to update_stmt :P)
I'd prefer we kill it. Anything that relies on it ough
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 13:22 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Currently, get_expr_operands "renormalizes" the actual tree operands on
> it's own whim , such that if you call update_stmt on something like "a +
> c", it may be "c + a" after the call to update_stmt.
> This is not the same as sorting the u
