On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:22:17PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/24/14 03:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> >I'd say this belongs into infer_value_range instead.
> Here we go with that variant:
>
> OK for the trunk?
Yes, thanks.
> --- a/gcc/ChangeLog
> +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> +2014-
On 01/24/14 03:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I'd say this belongs into infer_value_range instead.
Here we go with that variant:
OK for the trunk?
jeff
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 2998c72..3b1abbc 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2014-01-23 Jeff
On 01/24/14 09:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The only downside is we lose the ability to backward propagate
through a typecast which feeds an argument in such a call. But
that's probably not a big deal.
I couldn't actually reproduce any backwards propagation,
since now all pointer casts are usele
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 09:35:10AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/24/14 03:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:22:35PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>--- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> >>+++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> >>@@ -5891,8 +5891,13 @@ find_assert_locations_1 (basic_block bb, sbitmap
> >>live)
>
On 01/24/14 03:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:22:35PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
--- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
@@ -5891,8 +5891,13 @@ find_assert_locations_1 (basic_block bb, sbitmap live)
}
}
- register_new_assert_for
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:22:35PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> @@ -5891,8 +5891,13 @@ find_assert_locations_1 (basic_block bb, sbitmap live)
> }
> }
>
> - register_new_assert_for (op, op, comp_code, value, bb, NU
As noted in the PR, we have a call to a non-returning function which
occurs within a function that calls setjmp.
The non-returning call ends its containing basic block and there are no
normal outgoing edges from that block. Because the containing function
calls setjmp, there is an abnormal ed
