Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 27, 2025, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > What I was saying that the conservative tree_could_trap_p could say >> > 'yes' to a certain encoding of a ref but 'no' to another if in reality >> > the ref can never trap. We of course cannot (apart from bugs in >> > tree_could_trap_p) turn a for-sure trap into a not-trap by simply >> > rewriting the ref. >> >> I see. Yeah, that makes sense. >> >> > So I think we want this bit in (and it's dependences), but >> >> 'k, I'll split that bit out, after some clarification: >> >> > (I see the assert is no longer in the patch). >> >> That's because the assert went in as part of an earlier patch. I take >> it it should be backed out along with the to-be-split-out bits above, >> right? > > Yes. > > (IIRC there's also a PR tripping over this or a similar assert)
Right, PR118706. > > Richard. > >> >> -- >> Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ >> Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer >> More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity >> Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive
