Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-11 Thread Mark Mitchell
Roger Sayle wrote: > such a step. Is such a transition safe for stage 3 mainline, > and/or would front-ends prefer some time to double check that > this won't cause problems on conformance tests not part of GCC's > testsuite. I think it's reasonable to make this change at this point, as there ar

Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-04 Thread Richard Guenther
On 4/2/06, Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Following some of my recent middle-end clean-ups, I believe that > we're now at the point where incrementally the middle-end can > start ignoring the TREE_OVERFLOW bits on constant tree nodes. > As a step in this direction, the patch below remov

Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-02 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Roger Sayle wrote: > As a step in this direction, the patch below removes the > TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW checks from integer_zerop, integer_onep, Has there been a patch to the C++ front end corresponding to my patch to t

Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-02 Thread Roger Sayle
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > 2006-04-01 Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * tree.c (integer_zerop): Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW. > > [...] > > (int_size_in_bytes): Likewise. > > (host_integerp): Likewise. > > Is this an oversight? Doh. Indeed. The las

Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-02 Thread Eric Botcazou
> 2006-04-01 Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * tree.c (integer_zerop): Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW. > [...] > (int_size_in_bytes): Likewise. > (host_integerp): Likewise. Is this an oversight? *** int_size_in_bytes (tree type) *** 1725,1731 t =

Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-02 Thread Falk Hueffner
Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] the patch below removes the TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW checks from > integer_zerop, integer_onep, and friends in tree.c. Incidentally, this fixes PR 26729. -- Falk

[RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-01 Thread Roger Sayle
Following some of my recent middle-end clean-ups, I believe that we're now at the point where incrementally the middle-end can start ignoring the TREE_OVERFLOW bits on constant tree nodes. As a step in this direction, the patch below removes the TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW checks from integer_zerop, in