Peter Bergner <berg...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > On 4/28/20 2:38 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> case RTX_BIN_ARITH: >> case RTX_COMM_ARITH: >> op0 = simplify_replace_fn_rtx (XEXP (x, 0), old_rtx, fn, data); >> op1 = simplify_replace_fn_rtx (XEXP (x, 1), old_rtx, fn, data); >> if (op0 == XEXP (x, 0) && op1 == XEXP (x, 1)) >> return x; >> return simplify_gen_binary (code, mode, op0, op1); > > Is there a reason you use simplify_replace_fn_rtx here, rather than > just using op0 = simplify_rtx (XEXP (x, 0))? Ditto for op1. > Does simplify_replace_fn_rtx do something that simplify_rtx doesn't?
I was just quoting code from simplify_replace_fn_rtx as an example of something that handles a similar situation. The recursive calls would be different for cse_process_notes_1. Sorry for the confusion :-) Richard
