> Great. Does it also work in a non-template function?
Sadly it did not because there needs to be more AGGR_VIEW_EXPR handling,
as you predicted at some point. I fixed it now. Will send updated patches.
-Andi
On 7/16/24 6:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 06:06:42PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/16/24 5:55 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:52:31PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 02:51:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/16/24 12:18 PM, Andi Kleen
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 06:06:42PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/16/24 5:55 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:52:31PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 02:51:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On 7/16/24 12:18 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > On Tue
On 7/16/24 5:55 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:52:31PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 02:51:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/16/24 12:18 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:17:14AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/16/24 11:15 AM, Andi Klee
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:52:31PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 02:51:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 7/16/24 12:18 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:17:14AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On 7/16/24 11:15 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > > In
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 02:51:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/16/24 12:18 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:17:14AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 7/16/24 11:15 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > In the adjusted test it looks like the types of f and g match, so I
> >
On 7/16/24 12:18 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:17:14AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/16/24 11:15 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
In the adjusted test it looks like the types of f and g match, so I wouldn't
expect an error.
Good point! Missing the forest for the trees.
Anyways are
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:17:14AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/16/24 11:15 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > In the adjusted test it looks like the types of f and g match, so I
> > > wouldn't
> > > expect an error.
> >
> > Good point! Missing the forest for the trees.
> >
> > Anyways are the C+
On 7/16/24 11:15 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
In the adjusted test it looks like the types of f and g match, so I wouldn't
expect an error.
Good point! Missing the forest for the trees.
Anyways are the C++ patches ok with this change?
I'm still looking for a test which does error because the types
> In the adjusted test it looks like the types of f and g match, so I wouldn't
> expect an error.
Good point! Missing the forest for the trees.
Anyways are the C++ patches ok with this change?
Thanks,
-Andi
On 7/15/24 11:24 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 06:57:57PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/8/24 12:56 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
new file mode 100644
index ..9b7043b8a306
--- /dev/null
+++
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 06:57:57PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/8/24 12:56 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> > new file mode 100644
> > index ..9b7043b8a306
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/
On 7/8/24 12:56 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
new file mode 100644
index ..9b7043b8a306
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target { tail_call } } } */
Some adopted from the existing C musttail plugin tests.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* c-c++-common/musttail1.c: New test.
* c-c++-common/musttail2.c: New test.
* c-c++-common/musttail3.c: New test.
* c-c++-common/musttail4.c: New test.
* c-c++-common/musttail7
14 matches
Mail list logo
