From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 107738 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2015 15:31:50 -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 107720 invoked by uid 89); 1 Sep 2015 15:31:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:31:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AA0A8EA2F; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:31:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.116.46] (ovpn-116-46.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.116.46]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t81FVj3a024284; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:31:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [c++-delayed-folding] fold_simple To: Kai Tietz References: <55DE7C84.8080206@redhat.com> <55E13905.9040607@redhat.com> <55E49448.1040803@redhat.com> <55E4AB07.4060405@redhat.com> <55E5BA8F.7000002@redhat.com> Cc: gcc-patches List From: Jason Merrill Message-ID: <55E5C4E1.5060105@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 On 09/01/2015 11:27 AM, Kai Tietz wrote: > I rewrote binary/unary overflow-check logic so, that we avoid double > checking-s. I think this address things as you intend, beside the > checking for constant value. We would need to check for *_CST > tree-codes. Is there a macro we could use, which is just checking for > those? Yes, CONSTANT_CLASS_P. Jason