From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 561 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2005 05:57:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 543 invoked by uid 48); 14 Feb 2005 05:57:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050214055731.542.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040404161555.14844.kazu@cs.umass.edu> References: <20040404161555.14844.kazu@cs.umass.edu> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/14844] [tree-ssa] narrow types if wide result is not needed X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg01404.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14 05:57 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Sorry, but a little confused, as it's perfectly correct to shorten these operands to the width > of the operation's assignment, and in fact should be done? (so there's nothing to correct > and arguably should have been identifyed as such by the front-ends to begin with it would seem) What I was trying to say, is that this should not be done in the front-end as the front-end has almost no business to deal with optimizations. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14844