On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> + /* expN(logN(x)) -> x. */ >> + (simplify >> + (exps (logs @0)) >> + @0)) > > > We are not very consistent about it, but wasn't there an idea that we should > use non_lvalue in most such places?
Hmm, probably. IIRC the builtins.c code always wraps a NOP_EXPR around constants. OTOH I hope that the delayed folding branch will get merged for C++ and thus we can get rid of _all_ NON_VALUE_EXPRs produced by folding. At least the C FE no longer requires them. Richard. > -- > Marc Glisse
