Hi! On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 09:44:58AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > This breaks quite some powerpc.exp tests. Right now VEC_COND_EXPR expects > first > argument to be a SSA_NAME (or constant) and so the patch fixes that.
What does this mean? All context is missing here. Also, is expecting that correct or not? Was that a change? Please explain. > Using the patch, I survive powerpc.exp test-suite. So this patch does *not* break quite some tests, it fixes them instead? Please fix your commit message (and the Subject: even). > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c > b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c > index 817a14c9c0d..f613d372a13 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c > @@ -10716,14 +10716,16 @@ rs6000_builtin_valid_without_lhs (enum > rs6000_builtins fn_code) > CODE indicates which comparison is to be made. (EQ, GT, ...). > TYPE indicates the type of the result. */ > static tree > -fold_build_vec_cmp (tree_code code, tree type, > - tree arg0, tree arg1) > +fold_build_vec_cmp (tree_code code, tree type, tree arg0, tree arg1, > + gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi) The comment needs changing, explaining what the new arg is. Segher
