On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 03/05/12 12:21, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 27/04/12 11:01, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
I see you do not handle
>>>
struct S { int i; };
struct S foo (vo
On 03/05/12 12:21, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 27/04/12 11:01, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>>> I see you do not handle
>>
>>> struct S { int i; };
>>> struct S foo (void);
>>> struct S bar (void)
>>> {
>>> struct S
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 27/04/12 11:01, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> I see you do not handle
>
>> struct S { int i; };
>> struct S foo (void);
>> struct S bar (void)
>> {
>> struct S s1, s2;
>> if (...)
>> s = foo ();
>>
On 27/04/12 11:01, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I see you do not handle
> struct S { int i; };
> struct S foo (void);
> struct S bar (void)
> {
> struct S s1, s2;
> if (...)
>s = foo ();
> else
>s = foo ();
>
> because the calls have a LH
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 26/04/12 12:20, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Tom de Vries
>> wrote:
>>> On 25/04/12 11:57, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
Hmm. I'm not sure we can conclude that they have the same value!
>>
On 26/04/12 12:20, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 25/04/12 11:57, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. I'm not sure we can conclude that they have the same value!
>>>
>>> +int bar (int);
>>> +void baz (int);
>>> +void bla
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 25/04/12 11:57, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> Hmm. I'm not sure we can conclude that they have the same value!
>>
>> +int bar (int);
>> +void baz (int);
>> +void bla (int);
>> +
>> +void
>> +foo (in
On 25/04/12 11:57, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> >> Hmm. I'm not sure we can conclude that they have the same value!
>>> >>
>>> >> +int bar (int);
>>> >> +void baz (int);
>>> >> +void bla (int);
>>> >> +
>>> >> +void
>>> >> +foo (int y)
>>> >> +{
>>> >> + int a;
>>> >> + if (y == 6)
>>> >> +{
On 25/04/12 12:09, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:57:09AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> void *foo ()
>> {
>> return __builtin_return_address (0);
>> }
>>
>> void *bar (_Bool b)
>> {
>> if (b)
>> return foo ();
>> else
>> return foo ();
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:57:09AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> void *foo ()
> {
> return __builtin_return_address (0);
> }
>
> void *bar (_Bool b)
> {
> if (b)
> return foo ();
> else
> return foo ();
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> if (bar(true) == bar(false))
> abort ();
> }
>
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 17/04/12 14:24, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 27/01/12 21:37, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 24/01/12 11:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Tom de Vrie
On 17/04/12 14:24, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 27/01/12 21:37, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 24/01/12 11:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Tom de Vries
wrote:
> Richard,
> Jakub,
>
> the f
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 27/01/12 21:37, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 24/01/12 11:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Tom de Vries
>>> wrote:
Richard,
Jakub,
the following patch fixes PR51879.
Consider the
On 27/01/12 21:37, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 24/01/12 11:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Tom de Vries
>> wrote:
>>> Richard,
>>> Jakub,
>>>
>>> the following patch fixes PR51879.
>>>
>>> Consider the following test-case:
>>> ...
>>> int bar (int);
>>> void baz (int
On 24/01/12 11:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Richard,
>> Jakub,
>>
>> the following patch fixes PR51879.
>>
>> Consider the following test-case:
>> ...
>> int bar (int);
>> void baz (int);
>>
>> void
>> foo (int y)
>> {
>> int a;
>> if (y
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Richard,
> Jakub,
>
> the following patch fixes PR51879.
>
> Consider the following test-case:
> ...
> int bar (int);
> void baz (int);
>
> void
> foo (int y)
> {
> int a;
> if (y == 6)
> a = bar (7);
> else
> a = bar (7);
> baz (a)
Richard,
Jakub,
the following patch fixes PR51879.
Consider the following test-case:
...
int bar (int);
void baz (int);
void
foo (int y)
{
int a;
if (y == 6)
a = bar (7);
else
a = bar (7);
baz (a);
}
...
after compiling at -02, the representation looks like this before tail-merg
17 matches
Mail list logo
