From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9231 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2009 11:53:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 9222 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2009 11:53:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (212.99.106.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:53:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2464D29002F; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:53:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NptxguRvYXIP; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:53:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (83-153-84-149.rev.libertysurf.net [83.153.84.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6B7290045; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:53:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Richard Guenther Subject: Re: [PATCH][LTO] Re-set boolean_type_node in free_lang_data Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:09:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Diego Novillo References: <84fc9c000907101225w7a6b1cc1h19d2181c07303993@mail.gmail.com> <200910130802.38913.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <84fc9c000910130234k4336206ar24553ad67be93d7d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <84fc9c000910130234k4336206ar24553ad67be93d7d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200910141353.58960.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00901.txt.bz2 > Sure, but that's a different boolean_type_node then. And I don't > see a problem with that - do you? Yes, I do, I don't see what will prevent an optimizer from rewriting a boolean expression, say a condition, originally in 8-bit boolean, into an equivalent boolean expression in 1-bit boolean; this will change the semantics of the code, admittedly in rare corner cases but still. > I'm not convinced there is any breakage. I guess you do not > have a testcase as otherwise you'd have shown it already, no? Right, I haven't found any yet. But I nevertheless think that the hack should be eliminated sooner than later. -- Eric Botcazou