From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4067 invoked by alias); 29 May 2002 00:46:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4022 invoked by uid 71); 29 May 2002 00:46:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020529004603.4015.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Glen Nakamura Subject: Re: optimization/6822: GCC 3.1.1 - Internal compiler error in extract_insn, at recog.c:2132 Reply-To: Glen Nakamura X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00931.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/6822; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Glen Nakamura To: Eric Botcazou Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/6822: GCC 3.1.1 - Internal compiler error in extract_insn, at recog.c:2132 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:36:40 -1000 On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 01:29:35AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > May I suggest you to add thorough cross-comments to the code ? I see you did > so for the second optimization and I think it would be nice to do it for the > first one too (saying that the current location of the optimization causes > the second one to be altered). I'll add a few comments and post an updated patch... > It looks like this doesn't fit with the GCC policy on the matter, but it > could also be worth leaving the original code inside an #if 0/#endif or a > comment. Hmm, I suppose we could just leave the original code intact. I couldn't think of a case when it would actually be reached, but it's not a lot of code and maybe I overlooked something. Anyway, in the future, perhaps changes in the folding code will expose those cases? - Glen Nakamura