On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 04:21:24PM +0800, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 8:29 PM
> >
> > That's now extra compares (the operand_equal_p check now does
> > a check that can be derived transitively).
> >
> > S
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 8:29 PM
>
> That's now extra compares (the operand_equal_p check now does
> a check that can be derived transitively).
>
> So - ok with the operand_equal_p cehck removed.
>
> Also see if this can be backpo
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> In the code dealing with folding of structure and union initialization, there
> is a
> check that the size of the constructor is the same as the field being read.
> However, in the case of bitfield this test can be wrong because it reli
Thomas Preud'homme writes:
> In the code dealing with folding of structure and union initialization,
> there is a
> check that the size of the constructor is the same as the field being read.
> However, in the case of bitfield this test can be wrong because it relies on
> TYPE_SIZE to get the
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
>
> No regression were observed on any of the tests. The ChangeLog is as
> follows:
>
>
> 2014-08-11 Thomas Preud'homme
>
> * gimple-fold.c (fold_ctor_reference): Don't fold
