On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 5:43 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > That said, it'd be a lot clearer if this simply read
>
> > || !access_in_bounds_of_type_p (TREE_TYPE (inner), bs, bp)
>
> > without all the other weird conditions.
>
> ACK, will do.
>
On Jan 23, 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
> That said, it'd be a lot clearer if this simply read
> || !access_in_bounds_of_type_p (TREE_TYPE (inner), bs, bp)
> without all the other weird conditions.
ACK, will do.
>> + /* Check that the loads that we're trying to combine have the same
On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 6:58 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2025, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > I have another patch coming up that doesn't raise concerns for me, so
> > I'll hold off from installing the above, in case you also prefer the
> > other one.
>
> Unlike other access patterns,
On Jan 22, 2025, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I have another patch coming up that doesn't raise concerns for me, so
> I'll hold off from installing the above, in case you also prefer the
> other one.
Unlike other access patterns, BIT_FIELD_REFs aren't regarded as
possibly-trapping out of referencing
