On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 08:54 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Peter Bergner <berg...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > > On 4/29/20 4:15 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > > > On 4/29/20 3:28 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > > (Sorry for going ahead and writing an alternative patch, since if we do > > > > go for this, I guess the earlier misdirections will have wasted two days > > > > of your time. But it seemed like I was just never going to think about > > > > this PR properly unless I actually tried to write something. :-() > > > > > > No worries from me! I'm just glad to see this fixed before the release. > > > I'll kill off a bootstrap and regtest on powerpc64le-linux too, in > > > addition > > > to your tests (arm & x86_64?). Thanks for your help with this! > > > > My bootstrap and regtesting of your patch on powerpc64le-linux was clean. > > Thanks. aarch64-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu bootstrap & regtests > also came back clean. I'll kick off an arm-linux-gnueabihf one too > just to be safe. > > I guess at this point it needs a review from someone else though. > Jeff, WDYT? Attached again below, this time without the shonky mime type. It looks reasonable reasonable to me. Re-using simplify_replace_fn_rtx seems like a major simplification, which is definitely good. Presumably one of the major goals here is to get the CONST wrapping from simplify_plus_minus?
Jeff ps. Both forms looked the same in my inbox. Not sure how they showed up in the archives.
