On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:06:40PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 04/06/15 20:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 06:36:33PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:01:50PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >>>
>
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:57:59PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 06:36:33PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:01:50PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Change that into
> > > > >
> > > > > i
On 04/06/15 20:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 06:36:33PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:01:50PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
> Change that into
>
> int foo(char *s)
> {
> int l = st
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 06:36:33PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:01:50PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> > > > Change that into
> > > >
> > > > int foo(char *s)
> > > > {
> > > > int l = strlen (s);
> > > > char *p = m
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:01:50PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> > > Change that into
> > >
> > > int foo(char *s)
> > > {
> > > int l = strlen (s);
> > > char *p = memchr (s, 'a', l);
> > > return p+l;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Which is still me
Joseph Myers writes:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>> > Change that into
>> >
>> > int foo(char *s)
>> > {
>> > int l = strlen (s);
>> > char *p = memchr (s, 'a', l);
>> > return p+l;
>> > }
>> >
>>
>> Which is still meaningless if 'a' does not appear in s => when the
>
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > Change that into
> >
> > int foo(char *s)
> > {
> > int l = strlen (s);
> > char *p = memchr (s, 'a', l);
> > return p+l;
> > }
> >
>
> Which is still meaningless if 'a' does not appear in s => when the
> result is NULL + l.
>
> In fact, un
On 04/06/15 15:23, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:59:20PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:53:31PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:33:19PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:26:03PM +, Joseph Myers wro
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:59:20PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:53:31PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:33:19PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:26:03PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > > > Again is this worth a gcc p
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:53:31PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:33:19PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:26:03PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > > Again is this worth a gcc pass?
> > >
> > > This isn't a matter of compiler passes; it's addition
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:33:19PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:26:03PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > Again is this worth a gcc pass?
> >
> > This isn't a matter of compiler passes; it's additional checks in existing
> > built-in function handling. Maybe that built
11 matches
Mail list logo