On 4/5/23 13:02, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi again,
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:43:30AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/5/23 11:38, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Right. But it seems to me it has been there all those years? Does the
new testcase fail on older branches? Even if not, it seems
Hi again,
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:43:30AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 4/5/23 11:38, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >Right. But it seems to me it has been there all those years? Does the
> >new testcase fail on older branches? Even if not, it seems clear it is
> >wrong on the older branches as
On 4/5/23 11:38, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 09:07:30AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/5/23 08:21, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:48:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So as mentioned in the PR the underlying issue here is combine changes
the form of an
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 09:07:30AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 4/5/23 08:21, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:48:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>So as mentioned in the PR the underlying issue here is combine changes
> >>the form of an existing insn, but fails to force
On 4/5/23 08:21, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:48:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So as mentioned in the PR the underlying issue here is combine changes
the form of an existing insn, but fails to force re-recognition. As a
result other parts of the compiler blow up.
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:48:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> So as mentioned in the PR the underlying issue here is combine changes
> the form of an existing insn, but fails to force re-recognition. As a
> result other parts of the compiler blow up.
[snip]
> The fix is trivial, reset the
