From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5993C3858D33 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 11:07:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5993C3858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 32VB6kLh000734; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 06:06:46 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 32VB6k8w000733; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 06:06:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 06:06:45 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] combine: Split code out of make_compound_operation_int Message-ID: <20230331110645.GU25951@gate.crashing.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi! On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:09:59PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > This patch just splits some code out of make_compound_operation_int > into a new function called make_compound_operation_and. It is a > prerequisite for the fix for PR106594. > > It might (or might not) make sense to put more of the existing > "and" handling into the new function, so that the subreg+lshiftrt > case can be handled through recursion rather than duplication. > But that's certainly not necessary to fix the bug, so is at > best stage 1 material. > > No behavioural change intended. That doesn't sound as if you are very sure about things. I'll just pretend it says "no functional changes" :-) (*Is* this a pure refactoring?) Segher