From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5549 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2005 20:26:34 -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 5524 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2005 20:26:30 -0000 Received: from bethe.phy.uc.edu (HELO bethe.phy.uc.edu) (129.137.4.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:26:30 +0000 Received: from earth.geop.uc.edu (earth.phy.uc.edu [10.44.11.234]) by bethe.phy.uc.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9TKQQIj010858; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:26:26 -0400 Received: from earth.phy.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by earth.geop.uc.edu (8.12.11/8.9.3) with ESMTP id j9TKQQUM023881; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:26:26 -0400 Received: (from pinskia@localhost) by earth.phy.uc.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j9TKQQsg023880; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:26:26 -0400 From: Andrew Pinski Message-Id: <200510292026.j9TKQQsg023880@earth.phy.uc.edu> Subject: Re: patch ping To: pinskia@physics.uc.edu (Andrew Pinski) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:26:00 -0000 Cc: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor), pinskia@physics.uc.edu (Andrew Pinski), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <200510292017.j9TKHFBH023688@earth.phy.uc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -100 () USER_IN_WHITELIST X-SW-Source: 2005-10/txt/msg01658.txt.bz2 > > > > > Andrew Pinski writes: > > > > > I thought that I would not have to ping patches any more > > > with the patch queue but I am wrong, oh well. > > > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00879.html > > > [PATCH] Fix PR middle-end/22429, fold building tree which depends on signed overflow > > > > > > This fixes one of the wrong-code regressions in 4.1, basicially > > > fold was building a tree which depends on signed overflowing > > > being defined as wrapping which is only true with -fwrapv. > > > > Setting etype to TREE_TYPE (etype) looks wrong to me. And I suspect > > that the reason you have to do it is that your patch doesn't set value > > back to zero. The old code would work because it checks TREE_OVERFLOW > > again. But your patch effectively does not--it is possible for value > > to fall through without TREE_OVERFLOW being set. > > > > Also, I think the patch makes the code more confusing. In the case of > > flag_wrapv && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type), the first computation of value is > > of no importance. > > > > How about something like this? I haven't tested it. > This works except it introduces two Ada test failures, I am going to look > into them. They are both ICEs. Both of the failure is due to range_binop returning NULL in: 4047 if (integer_zerop (range_binop (NE_EXPR, integer_type_node, 4048 minv, 1, maxv, 1))) This is due to minv being a non-constant value. Let me try the obvious patch to test for that case and see if it works. -- Pinski