* [PATCH] fix PR translation/82185
@ 2017-09-11 21:16 Max Filippov
2017-09-11 21:37 ` Richard Sandiford
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Max Filippov @ 2017-09-11 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches; +Cc: Richard Sandiford, Max Filippov
2017-09-11 Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
gcc/
* expmed.c (emit_store_flag_int): Initialize rtx tem.
---
gcc/expmed.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/expmed.c b/gcc/expmed.c
index 7f0cb0a0ec05..945ab3d656a2 100644
--- a/gcc/expmed.c
+++ b/gcc/expmed.c
@@ -5601,7 +5601,7 @@ emit_store_flag_int (rtx target, rtx subtarget, enum rtx_code code, rtx op0,
{
machine_mode target_mode = target ? GET_MODE (target) : VOIDmode;
rtx_insn *last = get_last_insn ();
- rtx tem;
+ rtx tem = NULL_RTX;
/* If this is an equality comparison of integers, we can try to exclusive-or
(or subtract) the two operands and use a recursive call to try the
--
2.1.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fix PR translation/82185
2017-09-11 21:16 [PATCH] fix PR translation/82185 Max Filippov
@ 2017-09-11 21:37 ` Richard Sandiford
2017-09-11 21:59 ` Max Filippov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Richard Sandiford @ 2017-09-11 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Max Filippov; +Cc: gcc-patches
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> writes:
> 2017-09-11 Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
> gcc/
> * expmed.c (emit_store_flag_int): Initialize rtx tem.
LGTM, thanks, but I can't approve it.
This makes the later "tem = 0;" redundant, so perhaps it would make
sense to delete that too? There again, it was redundant before the
split as well.
An alternative would be to only test tem when we've done something
with it, as below, but I don't know if that's better or a step backwards.
Thanks,
Richard
gcc/
* expmed.c (emit_store_flag_int): Only test tem if it has been
initialized.
Index: gcc/expmed.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/expmed.c (revision 251980)
+++ gcc/expmed.c (working copy)
@@ -5601,7 +5601,6 @@ emit_store_flag_int (rtx target, rtx sub
{
machine_mode target_mode = target ? GET_MODE (target) : VOIDmode;
rtx_insn *last = get_last_insn ();
- rtx tem;
/* If this is an equality comparison of integers, we can try to exclusive-or
(or subtract) the two operands and use a recursive call to try the
@@ -5610,8 +5609,8 @@ emit_store_flag_int (rtx target, rtx sub
if ((code == EQ || code == NE) && op1 != const0_rtx)
{
- tem = expand_binop (mode, xor_optab, op0, op1, subtarget, 1,
- OPTAB_WIDEN);
+ rtx tem = expand_binop (mode, xor_optab, op0, op1, subtarget, 1,
+ OPTAB_WIDEN);
if (tem == 0)
tem = expand_binop (mode, sub_optab, op0, op1, subtarget, 1,
@@ -5643,26 +5642,28 @@ emit_store_flag_int (rtx target, rtx sub
&& rtx_cost (GEN_INT (normalizep), mode, PLUS, 1,
optimize_insn_for_speed_p ()) == 0)
{
- tem = emit_store_flag_1 (subtarget, rcode, op0, op1, mode, 0,
- STORE_FLAG_VALUE, target_mode);
+ rtx tem = emit_store_flag_1 (subtarget, rcode, op0, op1, mode, 0,
+ STORE_FLAG_VALUE, target_mode);
if (tem != 0)
tem = expand_binop (target_mode, add_optab, tem,
gen_int_mode (normalizep, target_mode),
target, 0, OPTAB_WIDEN);
+ if (tem != 0)
+ return tem;
}
else if (!want_add
&& rtx_cost (trueval, mode, XOR, 1,
optimize_insn_for_speed_p ()) == 0)
{
- tem = emit_store_flag_1 (subtarget, rcode, op0, op1, mode, 0,
- normalizep, target_mode);
+ rtx tem = emit_store_flag_1 (subtarget, rcode, op0, op1, mode, 0,
+ normalizep, target_mode);
if (tem != 0)
tem = expand_binop (target_mode, xor_optab, tem, trueval, target,
INTVAL (trueval) >= 0, OPTAB_WIDEN);
+ if (tem != 0)
+ return tem;
}
- if (tem != 0)
- return tem;
delete_insns_since (last);
}
@@ -5680,7 +5681,7 @@ emit_store_flag_int (rtx target, rtx sub
/* Try to put the result of the comparison in the sign bit. Assume we can't
do the necessary operation below. */
- tem = 0;
+ rtx tem = 0;
/* To see if A <= 0, compute (A | (A - 1)). A <= 0 iff that result has
the sign bit set. */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fix PR translation/82185
2017-09-11 21:37 ` Richard Sandiford
@ 2017-09-11 21:59 ` Max Filippov
2017-09-11 22:37 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Max Filippov @ 2017-09-11 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Max Filippov, gcc-patches, Richard Sandiford
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandiford@linaro.org> wrote:
> Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2017-09-11 Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
>> gcc/
>> * expmed.c (emit_store_flag_int): Initialize rtx tem.
>
> LGTM, thanks, but I can't approve it.
>
> This makes the later "tem = 0;" redundant, so perhaps it would make
> sense to delete that too? There again, it was redundant before the
> split as well.
>
> An alternative would be to only test tem when we've done something
> with it, as below, but I don't know if that's better or a step backwards.
this works for me too, so whichever fix you like better.
--
Thanks.
-- Max
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fix PR translation/82185
2017-09-11 21:59 ` Max Filippov
@ 2017-09-11 22:37 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2017-09-11 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Max Filippov, gcc-patches, Richard Sandiford
On 09/11/2017 03:59 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Richard Sandiford
> <richard.sandiford@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 2017-09-11 Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
>>> gcc/
>>> * expmed.c (emit_store_flag_int): Initialize rtx tem.
>>
>> LGTM, thanks, but I can't approve it.
>>
>> This makes the later "tem = 0;" redundant, so perhaps it would make
>> sense to delete that too? There again, it was redundant before the
>> split as well.
>>
>> An alternative would be to only test tem when we've done something
>> with it, as below, but I don't know if that's better or a step backwards.
>
> this works for me too, so whichever fix you like better.
I like narrowing the scope better -- it's a lot easier to reason about
the code when the def and uses are close and there's not a ton of
control flow.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-09-11 22:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-09-11 21:16 [PATCH] fix PR translation/82185 Max Filippov
2017-09-11 21:37 ` Richard Sandiford
2017-09-11 21:59 ` Max Filippov
2017-09-11 22:37 ` Jeff Law
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).