From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-457971-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14826 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2017 21:24:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11145 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jul 2017 21:24:41 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=01pm, 01PM
X-HELO: gate.crashing.org
Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:24:38 +0000
Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])	by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v6CLONqL027495;	Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:24:24 -0500
Received: (from segher@localhost)	by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id v6CLOMpm027492;	Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:24:22 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:24:00 -0000
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,        David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000]  Do not do gimple-folding of expressions that are missing their LHS
Message-ID: <20170712212422.GT13471@gate.crashing.org>
References: <1499877907.24125.400.camel@brimstone.rchland.ibm.com> <62DB3915-750A-4E7C-9B8D-AF1C91351163@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <62DB3915-750A-4E7C-9B8D-AF1C91351163@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2017-07/txt/msg00620.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:34:01PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Although I said this was invalid code, it really isn't -- it's legal code.  It's more of an ice-on-stupid-code situation. :)  So probably you should remove the "invalid" language from the commentary.  Sorry for misleading you.

We could fold this to nothing (if there are no side effects), but it
would be better if we made stupid code slower instead of faster ;-)


Segher