https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #33 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed May 18 13:06:24 2016
New Revision: 236390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Respect --param ipa-max-agg-items=0
2016-05-18 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #32 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed May 18 13:04:23 2016
New Revision: 236389
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236389&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 70646] Store size to inlining predicate conditions
2016-05-18 Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #31 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #30)
>
> Any reason it's not unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT size?
The only reason is to use the same type in which
get_ref_base_and_extent returns size.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
>
> --- Comment #29 from Martin Jambor ---
> Created attachment 38316
> --> https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #29 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 38316
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38316&action=edit
Fix storing access size to conditions
Honza asked me to also come up with a version of the patch where we
stor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #28 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #27)
> I was arguing that if IPA proves a condition to true/false then it
> should adjust it that way in modification phase.
The thing is that it does not prove i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 15, 2016 11:58:39 PM GMT+02:00, "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
>
>--- Comment #26 from Martin Jambor ---
>(In reply to Josh Poim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #26 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Josh Poimboeuf from comment #24)
>
> Yes, I'm looking for a general way to either prevent or try to detect
> potential other cases of the bug throughout the entire kernel.
>
> Can it only occu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #22)
> I suppose the easiest fix is to overload the value field to store the
> size of the access for these two codes and then add the missing check.
OK, so the IS_NO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #24 from Josh Poimboeuf ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #23)
> (In reply to Josh Poimboeuf from comment #20)
> > Thanks very much to everyone who has looked into this so far. It would be
> > very helpful to get answers to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Josh Poimboeuf from comment #20)
> Thanks very much to everyone who has looked into this so far. It would be
> very helpful to get answers to the following questions, so we can understand
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #18)
> Jakub: There is indeed aliasing issue, but with -fno-strict-aliasing the bug
> is the same.
>
> Apparently this is ipa-prop bug, because ipa-prop does not track
12 matches
Mail list logo
