From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-116179-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10361 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2004 15:11:07 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 10337 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2004 15:11:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2004 15:11:03 -0000
Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.127.39])
	by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SFB1k1011905;
	Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:11:01 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ZIPPY.Emea.Arm.com (george.emea.arm.com [10.1.255.81])
	by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22678;
	Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:10:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: zippy.emea.arm.com 10.1.255.80 from 10.1.205.4 10.1.205.4 via HTTP with MS-WebStorage 6.5.6944
Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com by zippy.emea.arm.com; 28 Apr 2004 16:11:01 +0100
Subject: Re: Patch ping
From: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <200404281456.12877.paul@codesourcery.com>
References: <200404281433.58671.paul@codesourcery.com>
	 <1083160020.14083.112.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
	 <200404281456.12877.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1083165061.14083.116.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:36:00 -0000
X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg01875.txt.bz2

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 14:56, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 April 2004 14:47, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 14:33, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > Patch ping: Output dwarf expressions for memory locations involving
> > > shifts.
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00856.html
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> > I don't think this is quite right.  The MULT code had some
> > simplifications when one of the operands was 0.  However, a shift by
> > zero is not the same as a multiply by zero -- the later results in zero,
> > the former is a NOP.
> 
> Are you sure?
> I see a check for (op0==0 || op1=0), but this is testing for successful 
> evaluation, not actual values.

Sorry, my mistake.  I'd misread the code.

Patch approved.

R.