On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> + if ((handled_component_p (arg0) || TREE_CODE (arg0) ==
>>> MEM_REF)
>>>
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
+ if ((handled_component_p (arg0) || TREE_CODE (arg0) == MEM_REF)
This check means the optimization is not performed for
BIT_FIELD_REF[a, *, CST] w
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> + if ((handled_component_p (arg0) || TREE_CODE (arg0) == MEM_REF)
This check means the optimization is not performed for
BIT_FIELD_REF[a, *, CST] which I see no par
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
+ if ((handled_component_p (arg0) || TREE_CODE (arg0) == MEM_REF)
This check means the optimization is not performed for
BIT_FIELD_REF[a, *, CST] which I see no particularly good reason for.
Er, are you trying to get rid of all BIT_FIELD_REFs?
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am not 100% convinced that it is always better to fold to a MEM_REF,
>>> but
>>> that's what the PR asks for.
>>>
>>> boo
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
I am not 100% convinced that it is always better to fold to a MEM_REF, but
that's what the PR asks for.
bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-04-03 Marc Glisse
PR middle-e
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am not 100% convinced that it is always better to fold to a MEM_REF, but
> that's what the PR asks for.
>
> bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
> 2013-04-03 Marc Glisse
>
> PR middle-end/52436
> gcc/
> * fo