Hi all,
I'm trying to add an alternative to an existing insn foobar:
(define_insn "foobar"
[(set (match_operand ...)
(match_operand ...))]
""
"@
foo
bar
#")
Since the asm output depends on the operands in a non-trivial way which isn't
easily solved via iterators, I went fo
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 07:02, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I am trying to understand what check_qualified_type
> > does exactly. The direct comparison of TYPE_NAMES seems incorrect
> > for C and its use is c_update_type_canonical then ca
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:53:41PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > If c_update_type_canonical is only ever called for the main variants of the
> > type and they always have !TYPE_QUALS (t), then yes.
> > But if we rely on that, perhaps we should gcc_checking_assert that.
> > So
> > gcc_checking_a
Am Montag, dem 17.06.2024 um 15:40 +0200 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:33:05PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > I've done that and that was because build_qualified_type uses that
> > > predicate, where qualified types created by build_qualified_type have
> > > as TYPE_CANONIC
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:33:05PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > I've done that and that was because build_qualified_type uses that
> > predicate, where qualified types created by build_qualified_type have
> > as TYPE_CANONICAL the qualified type of the main variant of the canonical
> > type, whi
Am Montag, dem 17.06.2024 um 14:57 +0200 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 02:42:05PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > I am trying to understand what check_qualified_type
> > > > > does exactly. The direct comparison of TYPE_NAMES seems incorrect
> > > > > for C and its use is
Am Montag, dem 17.06.2024 um 12:06 + schrieb Joseph Myers:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>
> > I think it should not warn about:
> >
> > char *x;
> > *(char * volatile *)&x;
> >
> > as this is regular qualifier adding and this is
> > a bug in GCC.
> >
> > I would guess
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 02:42:05PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > I am trying to understand what check_qualified_type
> > > > does exactly. The direct comparison of TYPE_NAMES seems incorrect
> > > > for C and its use is c_update_type_canonical then causes
> > > > PR114930 and PR115502. In t
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Montag, dem 17.06.2024 um 08:01 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener via Gcc:
> > On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am trying to understand what check_qualified_type
> > > does exactly. The direct comparison of TYPE_NAMES se
On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
> I think it should not warn about:
>
> char *x;
> *(char * volatile *)&x;
>
> as this is regular qualifier adding and this is
> a bug in GCC.
>
> I would guess it looks at all qualifiers added at
> all level but should ignore the one on the fir
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 07:17, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 09:14, Richard Biener via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The first release candidate for GCC 12.4 is available from
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots
11 matches
Mail list logo
