Any other comments on this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00129.html
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
(attaching the latest version. I only added comments since regtesting it)
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Btw, as for the patch I don't like that you bas
(attaching the latest version. I only added comments since regtesting it)
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Btw, as for the patch I don't like that you basically feed everything into
fold. Yes, I know we do that for conditions because that's quite
important
and nobody has re-written th
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> First, the fold-const bit causes an assertion failure (building libjava)
>>> in
>>> combine_cond_expr_cond, which calls:
>>>
>>> t = f
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
First, the fold-const bit causes an assertion failure (building libjava) in
combine_cond_expr_cond, which calls:
t = fold_binary_loc (gimple_location (stmt), code, type, op0, op1);
and then checks
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the first attached patch does not bootstrap and has at least 2 main issues.
> The second patch does pass bootstrap+testsuite, but I liked the first
> more...
>
> First, the fold-const bit causes an assertion failure (building libjava)
