http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-29
16:54:45 UTC ---
I'll take this one.
I think the assumption of operand placement is too embedded to tease out
easily, so I'm going to approach this by re-canonicalizing PLUS_EXPR,
POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, and MULT_EXPR when operand swapping has occurred. Are there
other tree codes that could be broken?
