On 09/30/2013 03:24 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 2013-09-03 Tristan Gingold
>
> * tree.c (set_call_expr_flags): Reject ECF_TM_PURE.
> (build_common_builtin_nodes): Set "transaction_pure"
> attribute on __builtin_eh_pointer function type (and not on
> its declaration).
O
On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 07:08 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The field state->ehp_region wasn't updated before lowering constructs in the
>> eh
>> path of EH_ELSE. As a consequence, __builtin_eh_pointer is lowered to 0 (or
>> possibly to
On 09/03/2013 07:08 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The field state->ehp_region wasn't updated before lowering constructs in the
> eh
> path of EH_ELSE. As a consequence, __builtin_eh_pointer is lowered to 0 (or
> possibly to a wrong region number) in this path.
>
> The only user of EH_ELS
Any comment/review on this patch ?
On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The field state->ehp_region wasn't updated before lowering constructs in the
> eh
> path of EH_ELSE. As a consequence, __builtin_eh_pointer is lowered to 0 (or
> possibly to a wrong region number)
Hi,
The field state->ehp_region wasn't updated before lowering constructs in the eh
path of EH_ELSE. As a consequence, __builtin_eh_pointer is lowered to 0 (or
possibly to a wrong region number) in this path.
The only user of EH_ELSE looks to be trans-mem.c:lower_transaction, and the
consequence
