On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 20-02-15 12:54, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > > On 19-02-15 14:07, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > I'd call it a bug though, and we do have internal fns in > > > > > > generic already thus the issue is latent (with ubsan at least). > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means ok for trunk now. > > > > > > > > > > But the patch should better handle the internal calls right. > > > > > I.e. return 0 only if only one, not both CALL_EXPR_FNs are NULL, > > > > > or if both are NULL and CALL_EXPR_IFN is different, or if > > > > > call_expr_nargs is different. > > > > > > > > The question is whether generic call handling works (esp. > > > > call_expr_flags > > > > works correctly - the argument compare should work fine already). > > > > > > > > Tom - care to update the patch? > > > > > > > > > > I agree, the current patch is conservative and we can do betterns, > - > . > > > But I think it's wiser to do that as a stage1 follow-up, and commit this > > > conservative patch for stage4. Is that acceptable? > > > > Then just defer it for stage1 completely. If a problem pops up with > > GCC 5 we can backport the proper patch together with a testcase. > > > > Updated patch according to Jakub's comments, retested. > > OK for stage1?
Ok. Thanks, Richard.
