Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> writes: > 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.
Great, thanks! Now pushed to master. > Presumably one of the major goals here is to get the CONST wrapping > from simplify_plus_minus? Yeah, that's right (via very indirect means :-)) > ps. Both forms looked the same in my inbox. Not sure how they showed up in > the > archives. The last one came out OK. I'd missed specifying a charset for the second one. Richard
