From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-72446-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13657 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2002 21:39:45 -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 13634 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2002 21:39:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.libertysurf.net) (213.36.80.91)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2002 21:39:44 -0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain (213.36.79.193) by mail.libertysurf.net (6.5.026)
        id 3DD47313001387FE; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:39:11 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR c/8439
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:39:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <7850000.1036775092@warlock.codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <7850000.1036775092@warlock.codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200211222239.27860.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg01410.txt.bz2

On Friday 08 November 2002 18:04, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > --- gcc/recog.c.orig    Fri Nov  8 12:41:35 2002
> > +++ gcc/recog.c Fri Nov  8 13:13:22 2002
> > @@ -522,10 +522,10 @@
> >      {
> >      case PLUS:
> >        /* If we have a PLUS whose second operand is now a CONST_INT, use
> > -         plus_constant to try to simplify it.
> > +         simplify_gen_binary to try to simplify it.
> >           ??? We may want later to remove this, once simplification is
> >           separated from this function.  */
> > -      if (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 1)) =3D=3D CONST_INT)
> > +      if (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 1)) =3D=3D CONST_INT && XEXP (x, 1) =3D=
=3D to)
> >         validate_change (object, loc,
> >                          simplify_gen_binary
> >                          (PLUS, GET_MODE (x), XEXP (x, 0), XEXP (x, 1)),
> > 1);
> >
> > I can bootstrap/regtest it if you think this approach is correct (even =
on
> > the  branch).
>
> That seems like a good strategy.  Try it, and check it in if it passes.
>
> But put it only on the mainline; if we do a GCC 3.2.2 we can consider
> moving it then.

OK for the branch, provided that it passes bootstrapping/regtesting ?

--=20
Eric Botcazou