> Hmm, like you said originally in the PR, I think generating the invalid
> PLUS is the bug here. I agree (as Richard B said) that an invalid PLUS
> shouldn't cause us to generate wrong code, but an assert seems better
> than a check. Eric, what do you think?
I think that this boils down to deci
Andrew Pinski writes:
> Hi,
> For some reason cse produced:
> (insn 27 43 28 2 (set (reg:SI 231 [+4 ])
> (plus:SI (reg:SI 229 [+4 ])
> (const_int 0 [0]))) t.c:24 10 {*addsi3}
> (nil))
>
> (insn 28 27 29 2 (set (reg:SI 212)
> (ltu:SI (reg:SI 231 [+4 ])
>
Hi,
For some reason cse produced:
(insn 27 43 28 2 (set (reg:SI 231 [+4 ])
(plus:SI (reg:SI 229 [+4 ])
(const_int 0 [0]))) t.c:24 10 {*addsi3}
(nil))
(insn 28 27 29 2 (set (reg:SI 212)
(ltu:SI (reg:SI 231 [+4 ])
(reg:SI 229 [+4 ]))) t.c:24 521 {*sltu_
