Re: rfc NOP vs CONVERT (was: Simplifying Gimple Generation)

2012-11-21 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Martin Jambor wrote: > > +++ gcc/ipa-cp.c2009-09-29 15:29:05.0 +0200 > > @@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ ipcp_lattice_from_jfunc (struct ipa_node > > return; > >cst = caller_lat->constant; > > > > - if (jfunc->value.pass_through.operation != NOP_EXPR) >

Re: rfc NOP vs CONVERT (was: Simplifying Gimple Generation)

2012-11-20 Thread Martin Jambor
Hi, On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 04:35:45PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > >> >> Ah, yes. This one was amusing. When

Re: rfc NOP vs CONVERT (was: Simplifying Gimple Generation)

2012-11-20 Thread Diego Novillo
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > I thought everybody can look into my head. Well, if you can't > due to my aluminium hat, here it is electronically :) Thanks. Looks fine with the appropriate ChangeLog entry. Diego.

Re: rfc NOP vs CONVERT (was: Simplifying Gimple Generation)

2012-11-19 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > >> >> Ah, yes. This one was amusing. When we were drafting the proposal, > >> >> Lawrence kept wondering what this NOP_EXPR thin