On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:33:06AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:12:35AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Ok - without digging into why the above would fail with your patch
> > (don't see that - the use in the function call can't be &opdd) - let's
> > take a step back and
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:12:35AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ok - without digging into why the above would fail with your patch
> (don't see that - the use in the function call can't be &opdd) - let's
> take a step back and decide whether we want to allow user-created
> function descriptors.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:19:51PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > > This means that you still will be able to create a testcase that is
>> > > miscompiled with exposing the addres
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:19:51PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > This means that you still will be able to create a testcase that is
> > > miscompiled with exposing the address-taking to points-to analysis.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't s
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Richard Biener
> >> Did you check whether other targets have function descriptors (seem
> >> to remember the Itanic here at least)?
Yes, ia64 and hppa64 use function descriptors. I don't know of any
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:51:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Won't the patch pessimize say const method calls through vtable?
I was worried about accidental pessimization too, so ran a full gcc
build with the patch and compared against one with s/ABI_AIX/ABI_NONE/
in rs6000_has_function_descri
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:01:31PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > . matches newline; use [^,]*, instead?
>
> \[^,\]* or \[^,]* , otherwise dejagnu/tcl eats it.
Right; I did mention to use {} instead of "" in a previous mail :-)
Segher
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:55:22PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:44:37AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr64703.c
> > ===
> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:44:37AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr64703.c
> ===
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr64703.c(revision 0)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr64703.c
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> PR target/64703
> >>> * target.def (has_function_descriptors): New hook.
> >>> * doc/tm.texi.in: Add TARGET_HAS_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS.
> >>> * doc/tc.texi: Regenerate.
> >>> * tree-ssa-alias
gcc/
PR target/64703
* target.def (has_function_descriptors): New hook.
* doc/tm.texi.in: Add TARGET_HAS_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS.
* doc/tc.texi: Regenerate.
* tree-ssa-alias.c (pt_solution_includes_base): New function,
extracted from..
(ref_maybe_used_by_call_p_1): ..here. Handle potential memory
ref
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
>>> Here is the completed patch. Bootstrapped and regression tested
>>> powerpc64-linux. Is this OK to apply? If not now, the
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> Here is the completed patch. Bootstrapped and regression tested
>> powerpc64-linux. Is this OK to apply? If not now, then when gcc is
>> in stage1 again?
>
> It's ok to apply as it is
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> Here is the completed patch. Bootstrapped and regression tested
> powerpc64-linux. Is this OK to apply? If not now, then when gcc is
> in stage1 again?
It's ok to apply as it is a wrong-code fix. It would also be ok to backport
if needed.
Here is the completed patch. Bootstrapped and regression tested
powerpc64-linux. Is this OK to apply? If not now, then when gcc is
in stage1 again?
gcc/
PR target/64703
* target.def (has_function_descriptors): New hook.
* doc/tm.texi.in: Add TARGET_HAS_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTO
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:11:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > How does this look as a potential fix for PR64703? I haven't made
> > many forays into gimple code, so even though this patch passes
> > bootstrap and regression testing on po
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> How does this look as a potential fix for PR64703? I haven't made
> many forays into gimple code, so even though this patch passes
> bootstrap and regression testing on powerpc64-linux it's quite
> possible this is the wrong place to change.
How does this look as a potential fix for PR64703? I haven't made
many forays into gimple code, so even though this patch passes
bootstrap and regression testing on powerpc64-linux it's quite
possible this is the wrong place to change. If it does look to be OK,
then I'll fill out the targetm chan
18 matches
Mail list logo
