From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25845 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2013 23:28:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 25833 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2013 23:28:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_TM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 23:28:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r26NSMH1013359 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:28:22 -0500 Received: from zalov.cz (vpn1-6-140.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.140]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r26NSKhf018064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:28:22 -0500 Received: from zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zalov.cz (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r26NSK2X023028; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:28:20 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by zalov.cz (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r26NSJ7u023027; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:28:19 +0100 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 23:28:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Jeff Law Cc: Richard Biener , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix up adjust_return_value_with_ops (PR tree-optimization/56539) Message-ID: <20130306232819.GY12913@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20130306164339.GX12913@tucnak.redhat.com> <5137BC91.5050600@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5137BC91.5050600@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00277.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 03:00:49PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > Doesn't the code in update_accumulator_with_ops need the same > change? No, the difference is that it uses false as the next to last argument, i.e. inserts after gsi, in which case GSI_CONTINUE_LINKING is desirable, so that the stmt is inserted after that. > Unrelated, but the block comment still refers to UPDATE, > which is no longer a parameter. Adjusted. > > I see similar looking code in tree-inline.c::copy_bb... Does it > need updating as well? That is again false, GSI_CONTINUE_LINKING pair, i.e. insert after and update gsi to point after the added stmts. Jakub