On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I noticed that the code we generate for a simple gimple_assign_rhs1
> > > > (stmt)
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I noticed that the code we generate for a simple gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt)
> > > is quite bad as we have two checking pieces. The implementat
On July 27, 2015 5:18:55 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Matz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> > > static inline tree
>> > > gimple_assign_rhs1 (const_gimple gs)
>> > > {
>> > >GIMPLE_CHECK (gs, GIMPLE_ASSIGN);
>> > >return gimple_op (gs, 1);
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > >
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > static inline tree
> > > gimple_assign_rhs1 (const_gimple gs)
> > > {
> > >GIMPLE_CHECK (gs, GIMPLE_ASSIGN);
> > >return gimple_op (gs, 1);
> > > }
> > >
> > > and the hidden checking is due to gimple_op being
> > >
> > > static i
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >
> > I noticed that the code we generate for a simple gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt)
> > is quite bad as we have two checking pieces. The implementation is now
> >
> > static inline tree
> > gimple_assign
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I noticed that the code we generate for a simple gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt)
> is quite bad as we have two checking pieces. The implementation is now
>
> static inline tree
> gimple_assign_rhs1 (const_gimple gs)
> {
>GIMPLE_CHECK (gs, GIMPLE_A
I noticed that the code we generate for a simple gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt)
is quite bad as we have two checking pieces. The implementation is now
static inline tree
gimple_assign_rhs1 (const_gimple gs)
{
GIMPLE_CHECK (gs, GIMPLE_ASSIGN);
return gimple_op (gs, 1);
}
and the hidden chec
