Yes, TREE_CODE (op1) != SSA_NAME shows that op1 is by no means SSA names
(although I don't know why). But how can I backwardly identify its
initialization statement _17 = (signed char *) _16? Thanks!
Shuai
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:32 AM Shuai Wang wrote:
> Got it. But in that sense, given a
Got it. But in that sense, given a `op1` satisfies the
"is_gimple_addressable" predicate (e.g., the _17 in my sample code), how
can I find its def statement? Thank you very much.
Shuai
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:19 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
> On June 15, 2020 6:58:27 PM GMT+02:00, Shuai Wang
> w
On Jun 15 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> $ git push fsf :refs/users/segher/heads/cc0
or git push --delete fsf refs/users/segher/heads/cc0
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something complet
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 09:17:43PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On June 15, 2020 7:19:13 PM GMT+02:00, Joseph Myers
> wrote:
> >I don't know if deleting and then recreating a user branch (in separate
> >
> >pushes) avoids the limit (and the excess mails) in the case where a
> >user
> >branch i
On June 15, 2020 6:58:27 PM GMT+02:00, Shuai Wang
wrote:
>Thank you very much for your prompt response, Rchard. Sorry I was kinda
>"learning by doing". I am familiar with LLVM stuff but newbie to GCC
>specifications.
>
>Just want to make sure I got it right; _17 and _16 in the IR code are
>SSA
>v
On June 15, 2020 7:19:13 PM GMT+02:00, Joseph Myers
wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
>> It should never send email for things that are on master (or any
>release
>> branch) already.
>
>https://github.com/AdaCore/git-hooks/issues/9
>
>https://github.com/AdaCore/git-hooks/pu
David,
The currently implemented rules and automation are not
encouraging personal branches in the GCC repository.
You are hereby awarded the prize for the understatement of the month.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:13 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:47:48AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > These are all the reasons why I don't use GCC repo for my personal
> > branches.
>
> Yeah, but I thought a lot of different GCC people might be interested in
> my "nuke CC0" p
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:47:48AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> These are all the reasons why I don't use GCC repo for my personal
> branches.
Yeah, but I thought a lot of different GCC people might be interested in
my "nuke CC0" patches, so putting it in the official repo seemed like a
good idea, for
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:43 AM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Thanks, good to hear things will get better.
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 05:19:13PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > It should never send email for user branches *at all*.
> >
> > I think sending email for all branches s
Hi Joseph,
Thanks, good to hear things will get better.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 05:19:13PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > It should never send email for user branches *at all*.
>
> I think sending email for all branches showing the development taking
> place there (as opposed to commits that ar
I think you can work around by deleting the branch before pushing.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> It should never send email for things that are on master (or any release
> branch) already.
https://github.com/AdaCore/git-hooks/issues/9
https://github.com/AdaCore/git-hooks/pull/12 is marked "Approved". It
certainly has fixes for some of the i
Thank you very much for your prompt response, Rchard. Sorry I was kinda
"learning by doing". I am familiar with LLVM stuff but newbie to GCC
specifications.
Just want to make sure I got it right; _17 and _16 in the IR code are SSA
variables. They are initialized for once and used once. Could you p
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 06:41:02PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jun 15 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 06:28:39PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On June 15, 2020 6:05:26 PM GMT+02:00, Segher Boessenkool
> >> wrote:
> >> >Of course it is not a fast-forward.
On June 15, 2020 6:31:38 PM GMT+02:00, Shuai Wang via Gcc
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Suppose given the following SSA statement generated by the `sanopt`
>pass:
>
> _17 = (signed char *) _16;
> _18 = *_17;
>
>I am using the following code to identify that _17 depends on _16:
>
>// def_stmt refers to _1
On Jun 15 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 06:28:39PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On June 15, 2020 6:05:26 PM GMT+02:00, Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>> >Of course it is not a fast-forward. I rebase the branches I publish,
>> >what is the point of publishing them ot
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 06:28:39PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On June 15, 2020 6:05:26 PM GMT+02:00, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >Of course it is not a fast-forward. I rebase the branches I publish,
> >what is the point of publishing them otherwise? This is so that people
> >can see the s
Hello,
Suppose given the following SSA statement generated by the `sanopt` pass:
_17 = (signed char *) _16;
_18 = *_17;
I am using the following code to identify that _17 depends on _16:
// def_stmt refers to _18 = &_17;
for (unsigned i = 1; i < gimple_num_ops(def_stmt); i++) {
o
On June 15, 2020 6:05:26 PM GMT+02:00, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>$ git push -n fsf
>To git+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git
> + 1db88c6...71e5e35 cc0 -> refs/users/segher/heads/cc0 (forced update)
>
>$ git push fsf
>Counting objects: 664, done.
>Delta compression using up to 64 threads.
>Com
Hi!
$ git push -n fsf
To git+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git
+ 1db88c6...71e5e35 cc0 -> refs/users/segher/heads/cc0 (forced update)
$ git push fsf
Counting objects: 664, done.
Delta compression using up to 64 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (239/239), done.
Writing objects: 100% (504/504), 87.7
I'm facing the issue that we have vector type dependent information
stored in dr_vec_info (the misalignment at least) and that with
BB vectorization (at least) we want to be able to access a DR group with
two different vector types.
I've run into this with
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patc
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 22:34, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 2:27 PM Andi Kleen via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > sotrdg sotrdg via Gcc writes:
> >
> > > http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2018/p0709r0.pdf
> > >
> > > I really want this feature. How, it looks like this
On 6/14/20 4:15 PM, Shuai Wang via Gcc wrote:
Hello,
I am writing to inquire the procedure (or any tutorial) to write plugins
for the `sanopt` pass. Basically I am doing some analysis of ASan/UBSan
checks. I use the following command to dump all passes in IR format:
gcc -fdump-tree-all -fsaniti
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Shuai Wang via Gcc wrote:
Dear Marc,
Thank you very much! Just another quick question.. Can I iterate the
operands of a GIMPLE statement, like how I iterate a LLVM instruction in
the following way?
Instruction* instr;
for (size_t i=0; i< instr->getNumOperands();i++)
25 matches
Mail list logo
