https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to dave.anglin from comment #21) > On 2018-09-09 2:46 PM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > > In the last patch you replace arg0 || arg1 with arg0 & & arg1, that looks > > wrong. Otherwise the patch looks OK. > It was intentional. See the comment in dojump.c: > > /* If function pointers need to be "canonicalized" before they can > be reliably compared, then canonicalize them. > Only do this if *both* sides of the comparison are function pointers. > If one side isn't, we want a noncanonicalized comparison. See PR > middle-end/17564. */ > if (targetm.have_canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () > && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (treeop0)) > && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (treeop1)) > && FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (treeop0))) > && FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (treeop1)))) > > Based on this, I thought that we could allow do_store_flag to output a > "scc" instruction > when both sides weren't function or method pointers. Ah, I see. > I just looked at the testcase for middle-end/17564. I think we also > have to handle > pointers to void types. Looks like fix for 17564 was wrong... > > I also missed updating a similar bit of code in match.pd with > POINTER_TYPE_P and > FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P. > > I'm not 100% certain about the need for the code in fold-const.c and > match.pd. Well, for consistency we probably want them. > Dave
