From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-64162-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27870 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2002 12:03:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27859 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 12:03:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 12:03:33 -0000
Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Charybdis.suse.de [213.95.15.201])
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9D22414593; Fri,  6 Dec 2002 13:03:32 +0100 (MET)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 04:16:00 -0000
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] bootstrap failure on x86
In-Reply-To: <20021205155118.GC15665@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0212061301420.19915-100000@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20021206041600.4gRsiZmp-YxsFyTjoGowMDeREOw_k9mhya6AWf07-Sw@z>

Hi,

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> > -   && !x86_64_immediate_operand (operands[1], DImode)"
> > +   && !x86_64_immediate_operand (operands[1], DImode) && 1"
>
> Hmm, now I remember the reason for && 1.  The patterns looks same but
> when one fails the other is used.  OK I will re-add the && 1 as obvious
> fix.

And add a comment for that effect.  Otherwise later people will wonder
again about the useless "&& 1" and remove it.  It's highly magic ;-)


Ciao,
Michael.