From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3566 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2014 05:19:11 -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 3553 invoked by uid 89); 15 Aug 2014 05:19:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 05:19:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7F5J80c004858 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:19:08 -0400 Received: from stumpy.slc.redhat.com (ovpn-113-24.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.24]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7F5J81b003213; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:19:08 -0400 Message-ID: <53ED984C.3060706@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 05:19:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Malcolm , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 007/236] New function: for_each_rtx_in_insn References: <1407345815-14551-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <1407345815-14551-8-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <53EA8260.3020501@redhat.com> <1408050295.28418.226.camel@surprise> <87r40ivjm8.fsf@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <87r40ivjm8.fsf@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg01543.txt.bz2 On 08/14/14 15:36, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Right. I think they're held up on patch 40 (ironically the one that > conflicts with yours). I think we could declare side effects in notes as invalid and add some ENABLE_CHECKING bits to enforce that. With those in place, my concerns around #40 from your series would be eliminated. Jeff