From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-103585-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30181 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2004 21:41:09 -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 30172 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2004 21:41:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2004 21:41:08 -0000
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i93LdZDP026387;
	Sun, 3 Oct 2004 17:39:35 -0400
Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15])
	by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i93Lf7725725;
	Sun, 3 Oct 2004 17:41:07 -0400
Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.27])
	by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i93Lf6V02717;
	Sun, 3 Oct 2004 14:41:06 -0700
Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i93Lf6QH007732;
	Sun, 3 Oct 2004 14:41:06 -0700
Received: (from rth@localhost)
	by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i93Lf6tQ007730;
	Sun, 3 Oct 2004 14:41:06 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:55:00 -0000
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Ulrich Weigand <weigand@i1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Regression due to tree loop opt / expand weirdness
Message-ID: <20041003214106.GA7724@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
	Ulrich Weigand <weigand@i1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org
References: <20041003195444.GA7523@redhat.com> <200410032005.WAA11895@faui1m.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200410032005.WAA11895@faui1m.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 10:05:37PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Would changing the test in expand_expr_addr_expr from 
> 
>   if (!target.valid_pointer_mode (tmode))
> 
> to
> 
>   if (tmode != Pmode && tmode != ptr_mode)
> 
> be OK with you?  This should cause no change to ia64 ...

I can't imagine except that would break things when you *do*
want to use "typedef void *ptr32 __attribute__((mode(SI)));".

So, no, this isn't ok.


r~