From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 73350 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2015 15:41:51 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 73326 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2015 15:41:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:41:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E396568E10; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:41:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-204-104.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.104]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tAUFfhsn001879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:41:47 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:51:00 -0000 From: Marek Polacek To: Richard Biener Cc: GCC Patches , Joseph Myers , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add save_expr langhook (PR c/68513) Message-ID: <20151130154143.GF28072@redhat.com> References: <20151127185531.GA28072@redhat.com> <43651703-7ABE-491D-8D5B-863E921EA365@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43651703-7ABE-491D-8D5B-863E921EA365@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg03494.txt.bz2 On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 08:50:12AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > Different approach: after the FE folds (unexpectedly?), scan the result for > SAVE_EXPRs and if found, drop the folding. Neither this fixes this problem completely, because we simply don't know where those SAVE_EXPRs might be introduced: it might be convert(), but e.g. when I changed the original testcase a tiny bit (added -), then those SAVE_EXPRs were introduced in a different spot (via c_process_stmt_expr -> c_fully_fold). Marek