From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 88836 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2016 20:08:50 -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 88819 invoked by uid 89); 19 Feb 2016 20:08:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:08:48 +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 AA8107EBB1; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:08:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz ([10.3.113.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1JK8kGv002479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:08:47 -0500 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u1JK8hLI007168; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 21:08:44 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u1JK8g06007167; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 21:08:42 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:08:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Bernd Edlinger Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Bernd Schmidt , Eric Botcazou , "jason@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix expansion of TREE_ADDRESSABLE bitwise copies (PR c++/69851) Message-ID: <20160219200842.GZ3017@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20160219190447.GX3017@tucnak.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg01381.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:04:39PM +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > but you are just adding another term to this expression: > !(TREE_CODE (exp) == CONSTRUCTOR > && bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0) No. Please read the code again. I'm adding another case after this one. > so the result should look like > !(TREE_CODE (exp) == CONSTRUCTOR > && bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0 > && (!TREE_ADDRESSABLE ... > || TREE_CODE () ... > ... > || (compare_tree_int ... > != 0))) Jakub