[ forwarding. for some reason, this email didn't make it to gcc-patches ml
archive ]
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [PATCH][4/5] Handle internal_fn in operand_equal_p
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:03:34 +0100
From: Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
To: Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com>
CC: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Michael Matz <m...@suse.de>
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 20-02-15 12:54, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> > On 19-02-15 14:07, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > I'd call it a bug though, and we do have internal fns in
> > > > > generic already thus the issue is latent (with ubsan at least).
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means ok for trunk now.
> > > >
> > > > But the patch should better handle the internal calls right.
> > > > I.e. return 0 only if only one, not both CALL_EXPR_FNs are NULL,
> > > > or if both are NULL and CALL_EXPR_IFN is different, or if
> > > > call_expr_nargs is different.
> > >
> > > The question is whether generic call handling works (esp.
> > > call_expr_flags
> > > works correctly - the argument compare should work fine already).
> > >
> > > Tom - care to update the patch?
> > >
> >
> > I agree, the current patch is conservative and we can do betterns,
-
.
> > But I think it's wiser to do that as a stage1 follow-up, and commit this
> > conservative patch for stage4. Is that acceptable?
>
> Then just defer it for stage1 completely. If a problem pops up with
> GCC 5 we can backport the proper patch together with a testcase.
>
Updated patch according to Jakub's comments, retested.
OK for stage1?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
