Richard Biener writes:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> > What I was saying that the conservative tree_could_trap_p could say
>> > 'yes' to a certain encoding of a ref but 'no' to another if in reality
>> > the ref can ne
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > What I was saying that the conservative tree_could_trap_p could say
> > 'yes' to a certain encoding of a ref but 'no' to another if in reality
> > the ref can never trap. We of course cannot (a
On Jan 27, 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
> What I was saying that the conservative tree_could_trap_p could say
> 'yes' to a certain encoding of a ref but 'no' to another if in reality
> the ref can never trap. We of course cannot (apart from bugs in
> tree_could_trap_p) turn a for-sure trap into a
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 4:37 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Hmm. I think when an original ref could trap that should be the
> > insertion point (or the original ref should post-dominate the insertion
> > point).
>
> I suppose we could do that, but...
On Jan 24, 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
> Hmm. I think when an original ref could trap that should be the
> insertion point (or the original ref should post-dominate the insertion
> point).
I suppose we could do that, but... intuitively, it doesn't feel safe to
move a nontrapping load down to
