On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:53:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > An alternative slightly more expensive patch is the following which
> > I'm now testing on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, the above testcase
> > is fixed with it (verified with a cross).
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:56:16PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> The following fixes the C familiy gimplification langhook
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:56:16PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> The following fixes the C familiy gimplification langhook to not
> >> introduce tree sharing which isn't valid
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:56:16PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> The following fixes the C familiy gimplification langhook to not
>> introduce tree sharing which isn't valid during gimplification.
>> For the specific case
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:56:16PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> The following fixes the C familiy gimplification langhook to not
> introduce tree sharing which isn't valid during gimplification.
> For the specific case the tree sharing is introduced by
> fold_binary_op_with_cond and is reached
The following fixes the C familiy gimplification langhook to not
introduce tree sharing which isn't valid during gimplification.
For the specific case the tree sharing is introduced by
fold_binary_op_with_cond and is reached via convert () eventually
folding something. I've kept folding