On 2/13/20 2:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:39:05PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 10:24 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!

I'd like to ping a couple of patches:

PR target/91913 - arm movsi + cmpsi -> movsi_compare0 peephole2 ICE fix
    https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00010.html
Letting the ARM guys deal with this.

Yes, that is resolved now (Richard E. committed his patch and I've
committed the testcase).

PR preprocessor/92319 - partially implement P1042R1: __VA_OPT__ wording 
clarifications
    https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg02104.html
Jason for this one.

Of course; I just chose to send a ping for all my pending patches and
add to To: all relevant maintainers.

PR target/93069 - avx512* rejects-valid fix (rejected by assembler)
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01606.html
This is in my queue :-)

Ok.

PR tree-optimization/92868 - compute_objsize/gimple_call_alloc_size
                              /maybe_warn_overflow fixes
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01164.html
Martin's patch should have addressed all the issues and should include
your tests (tweaked, but supposed to be equivalent).

No, this is something different, this isn't what has been covered by the
testcases, but something found by code inspection, mainly inconsistencies
in the APIs, e.g. the ranges represented as sizetype most of the time,
but with one exception where it could be some other type (wider or
narrower), or sometimes the range being incorrect (if there is possible
overflow and we punt, we didn't change the ranges effectively to VARYING,
but just capped the maximum), or INTEGER_CSTs compared by pointer equality
rather than operand_equal_p.

As I said repeatedly in my comments on the patch, I'm not in favor
of these changes.  I don't think they hurt anything but they also
don't fix anything that I can see.  There's is no bug the change
fixes (PR 92868 is closed as resolved) or a test case included in
the patch that verifies the improvement.  The changes are also not
in the direction I'd like to see this code evolve.

Martin

Reply via email to