Re: [CIL users] Simplifying --dosimplify, continued

2011-10-30 Thread Pavel Shved
On Friday, October 28, 2011 00:39:41 you wrote: > However, in rare cases, there is a problem with arrays and their > modifiers. The option requires CIL to generate temporary variables > with more complex types than previously, and the resultant code is > not always compilable. Consider the follow

Re: [CIL users] Simplifying --dosimplify, continued

2011-10-30 Thread Pavel Shved
On Sunday, October 30, 2011 16:52:04 Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote: > I use --dosimplify in an application that traces memory > accesses. For this application, as for most if not all CIL > usage, it is important to have an error-free transformation > for the broadest class of sources. > > I would sug

Re: [CIL users] Simplifying --dosimplify, continued

2011-10-30 Thread Mihai T. Lazarescu
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 07:14:26PM +0400, Pavel Shved wrote: > > > 2) could this patch be added to upstream nevertheless? I think > > > that the benefits to the verification tools, for which the > > > options is useful, are much greater than the very rarely > > > encountered issue with "very vola

Re: [CIL users] Simplifying --dosimplify, continued

2011-10-30 Thread Pavel Shved
Thank you for the comments, I'll take them into account and form a new patch. On Friday, October 28, 2011 16:55:56 you wrote: > Why does --no-convert-field-offsets imply --no-split-structs? > Shouldn't the user be to enable them separately? > > > @@ -89,6 +89,12 @@ let simplAddrOf = ref true >