Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:29:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > Does this look reasonable? Any comments or suggestions appreciated! > > > > Yes, getting rid of this fragile interaction by doing more work in > > vect_recog_widen_shift_pattern sounds like the correct thing to do. > > Or give up when seeing already pattern recognized stmts when detecting > different pattern, unless the current pattern recognizer is prepared to > handle them (and in that case tweak everything as necessary). > > E.g. several pattern recognizers already start with > if (STMT_VINFO_IN_PATTERN_P (stmt_vinfo)) > return NULL;
Yes, we should do that, and it'll fix the ICE for sure, but -as I said in the original mail- doing *only* this will cause regressions in some cases because we no longer get the combined fix-over-widening-*and*- use-widening-shift effect ... Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
