From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6251 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2002 05:32:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6244 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2002 05:32:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO potter.sfbay.redhat.com) (205.180.83.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2002 05:32:15 -0000 Received: from dot.sfbay.redhat.com (dot.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.7]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6H5WoQ23835; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:32:50 -0700 Received: (from rth@localhost) by dot.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6H5WFT14032; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:32:15 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: dot.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:07:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Graham Stott Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: recog.c apply_change_group ret zero if num_changes is 0. Message-ID: <20020716223215.B14020@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Graham Stott , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <3D30753E.40003@btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3D30753E.40003@btinternet.com>; from graham.stott@btinternet.com on Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 07:45:18PM +0100 X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00853.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 07:45:18PM +0100, Graham Stott wrote: > I noticed that if apply_change_group is called and num_changes is zero > then 1 is returned. I think it makes more sense to return 0 if no > changes are outstanding. Possibly, possibly not. It is true that all substitutions were successful, which might be important to some pass that may or may not remember whether or not it made changes while determining if some (larger) change is possible. What is this supposed to affect? r~