http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-04 12:07:53
UTC ---
For the rest of the discussion, see the thread starting here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00169.html
In particular, the folding should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02
08:27:51 UTC ---
The patch looks fine to me, though it might be a bit expensive. I'd
re-organize it like
if (TREE_INT_CST_LOW (arg1) % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02 14:08:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I'd re-organize it like
Ok, I'll try something like that.
it avoids building a tree just to feed it into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-04-02 14:21:56 UTC ---
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #4 from Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02 14:36:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
No, get_addr_base_and_unit_offset_1 only is supposed to return the
addressable offset into an object - it doesn't care about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-01 15:14:59
UTC ---
Created attachment 29767
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29767
patch
This patch may be a bit too strong. In particular, it breaks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
