2017-06-08 22:45 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 03:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>> 2017-05-09 Alexander Ivchenko
>>
>> * gcc.target/i386/mpx/hard-reg-2-lbv.c: New test.
>> * gcc.target/i386/mpx/hard-reg-2-nov.c: New test.
>> * gcc.target/i
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 03:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> 2017-05-09 Alexander Ivchenko
>
> * gcc.target/i386/mpx/hard-reg-2-lbv.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/i386/mpx/hard-reg-2-nov.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/i386/mpx/hard-reg-2-ubv.c: New test.
These tests
2017-05-09 16:29 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko :
> Hi,
>
> Here is the latest version of the patch with all comments addressed:
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-05-09 Alexander Ivchenko
>
> * tree-chkp.c (chkp_get_hard_register_var_fake_base_address):
> New function.
> (chkp_get_hard_r
Hi,
Here is the latest version of the patch with all comments addressed:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-05-09 Alexander Ivchenko
* tree-chkp.c (chkp_get_hard_register_var_fake_base_address):
New function.
(chkp_get_hard_register_fake_addr_expr): Ditto.
(chkp_build_addr_expr): Ad
Something like that?
diff --git a/gcc/tree-chkp.c b/gcc/tree-chkp.c
index 3ef73a9..3fb76bc 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-chkp.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-chkp.c
@@ -3700,6 +3700,11 @@ chkp_find_bounds_1 (tree ptr, tree ptr_src,
gimple_stmt_iterator *iter)
case ARRAY_REF:
case COMPONENT_REF:
addr = g
2017-04-20 12:27 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko :
> Thanks for correcting the usage of get_base_address. I fixed that.
> Plus addressed the comment about the avoiding the usage of
> chkp_find_bounds.
>
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-04-20 Alexander Ivchenko
>
> * gcc.target/i386/mpx
Thanks for correcting the usage of get_base_address. I fixed that.
Plus addressed the comment about the avoiding the usage of
chkp_find_bounds.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2017-04-20 Alexander Ivchenko
* gcc.target/i386/mpx/hard-reg-2-lbv.c: New test.
* gcc.target/i386/mpx/hard-
Hi,
Thanks for the comments, that was a good idea to place all the logic inside
of chkp_build_addr_expr function. I followed it and here is what I got:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2017-04-19 Alexander Ivchenko
* gcc.target/i386/mpx/hard-reg-2-lbv.c: New test.
* gcc.target/i386/m
2017-04-02 23:52 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko :
> Hi,
>
> Here is the patch that roughly follows your idea.
> Some comments:
>
> - There are more cases than array_ref overflow. We need to take care
> of component_ref and both underflows/overflows are possible
> - I could not make it work with "0" a
Hi,
Here is the patch that roughly follows your idea.
Some comments:
- There are more cases than array_ref overflow. We need to take care
of component_ref and both underflows/overflows are possible
- I could not make it work with "0" as a fake address, because then
catching lower bounds violation
2017-03-23 17:18 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko :
> Hi,
>
> The patch below attempts to fix the PR. I checked that it did not
> break any of mpx.exp tests, but I did not run the full testing yet.
> Would like to know whether this approach is generally correct or not.
>
> The issue is that we have the
Hi,
The patch below attempts to fix the PR. I checked that it did not
break any of mpx.exp tests, but I did not run the full testing yet.
Would like to know whether this approach is generally correct or not.
The issue is that we have the hard reg vector variable:
typedef int U __attribute__ ((ve
12 matches
Mail list logo
