From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22418 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2015 22:20:35 -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 22407 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jan 2015 22:20:35 -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,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_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; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:20:33 +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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0EMKNEL013538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:20:24 -0500 Received: from anchor.twiddle.net (vpn-227-68.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.227.68]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0EMKMWD029570; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:20:22 -0500 Message-ID: <54B6EBA5.2020106@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:59:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Venkataramanan Kumar , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" CC: Maxim Kuvyrkov , segher@kernel.crashing.org, Richard Earnshaw , bernds@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Tighten memory type assumption in RTL combiner pass. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg01125.txt.bz2 On 01/14/2015 03:27 AM, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote: > next_code = (code == MEM ? MEM > : ((code == PLUS || code == MINUS) > - && SCALAR_INT_MODE_P (mode)) ? MEM > + && SCALAR_INT_MODE_P (mode) > + && (in_code == MEM)) ? MEM > : ((code == COMPARE || COMPARISON_P (x)) > && XEXP (x, 1) == const0_rtx) ? COMPARE > : in_code == COMPARE ? SET : in_code); Isn't this change the same as simply deleting the condition? If we're testing in_code == MEM, isn't that the same as just returning in_code, as the last condition does? Seconded Law's request for more information... r~