Hi,
Am Dienstag, dem 29.11.2022 um 15:44 + schrieb Michael Matz:
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022, Uecker, Martin wrote:
>
> > It does not require any changes on how arrays are represented.
> >
> > As part of VM-types the size becomes part of the type and this
Am Dienstag, dem 29.11.2022 um 14:58 + schrieb Michael Matz:
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022, Alex Colomar via Gcc wrote:
>
> > How about the compiler parsing the parameter list twice?
>
> This _is_ unbounded look-ahead. You could avoid this by using "."
> for
> your new syntax. Use someth
Hi Richard,
here is another case where it seems that TBAA goes
wrong. Since this is not in a loop, it seems this
is something else than what we discussed. Is
this a known issue?
Best,
Martin
#include
#include
union u {
long x;
long long y;
};
__attribute__((noinline,noclone))
long tes
I wonder if we could get a nice short command-line option
for recommended safety/security related flags.
We have -Ox for optimization and -Wall for a useful set
of recommended warnings.
I am thinking about options such as
-ftrapv
-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error
-fstack
Am Montag, den 17.05.2021, 09:44 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 9:32 AM Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am Montag, den 17.05.2021, 09:08 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> > > On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 8:57 AM Uecker, Martin
> >
Am Montag, den 17.05.2021, 09:08 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 8:57 AM Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I noticed that GCC 11 has different behavior in the following
> > example relative to 10.2
Hi Richard,
I noticed that GCC 11 has different behavior in the following
example relative to 10.2 with -O2. I wonder whether this
is an intentional change and if yes, what are the rules?
Thanks!
Martin
https://godbolt.org/z/57res7ax1
#include
#include
__attribute__((__noinline__, __weak_
Am Dienstag, den 17.11.2020, 11:31 -0800 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > It would need to be typeof( (typeof(type)) (type) ) to not be that
> > constrained on what kind of expressions it accepts as arguments.
>
> Yup.
>
> > Anyway, it won'
Am Montag, den 16.11.2020, 12:10 +0100 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> ( restoring at least linux-toolcha...@vger.kernel.org, since that
> seems
> to have gone missing )
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:31:42PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I was looking at the recent linux patch series [1] where segment
> > qualifiers (named address spaces) were introduced to handle percpu
> > variables. In the patch [2], the author mentions that:
> >
> > --q--
> > U
I tested a recent GCC from git and noticed a couple
of new warnings for VLA parameters.
(Martin, I assume this is your work. First, let me
say: thank you! I think this is really important.)
Here is some feedback from running this on an
existing code base. See below for comments and
toy example
Hi all,
the following code compiles into a mov instruction
on x86_64. I wonder why. The struct has alignment 4,
so a mov might not be atomic if the struct is not
alligned to its full size. For this reason,
I expected a call to libatomic instead
(LLVM does this). What am I missing?
The docume
Am Dienstag, den 11.02.2020, 21:43 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On February 11, 2020 9:32:14 PM GMT+01:00, "Uecker, Martin"
>
> wrote:
> >
> > In the following example, it seems
> > that 'bar' could be optimized to
> > return '1&#x
In the following example, it seems
that 'bar' could be optimized to
return '1' and every else could be
optimized away. Or am I missing
something? Do I need to add
some specific compiler flags?
static int a = 1;
static int *p;
extern
void foo(void)
{
p = &a;
}
extern
int bar(void)
{
retu
Am Freitag, den 04.10.2019, 14:28 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:55 PM Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
> > Am Freitag, den 04.10.2019, 12:29 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:24 PM Uecker, Martin
> > > wrot
Am Freitag, den 04.10.2019, 12:29 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:24 PM Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 02.10.2019, 17:37 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > Oh, and LT
Am Mittwoch, den 02.10.2019, 17:37 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On October 2, 2019 3:55:43 PM GMT+02:00, "Uecker, Martin"
>
> wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 02.10.2019, 15:12 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:10 PM Richard Biener
&g
Am Mittwoch, den 02.10.2019, 15:12 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:10 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:35 PM Uecker, Martin
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 02.10.2019, 14:18 +0200 schrieb Rich
Am Mittwoch, den 02.10.2019, 14:18 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:57 PM Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
Thank you for your answers.
> > Finally, how does LTO does it? It somehow also needs to unify
> > different tagged types? Could we reus
Am Mittwoch, den 02.10.2019, 12:47 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:46 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:49 PM Uecker, Martin
> > wrote:
...
> > >
> > > In particular, the idea is to make structs (+
Hi,
I have a proposal for making changes to the rules for
compatibility of tagged types in C2X (N2366). This was
received with interest by WG14, so there is a chance
that this could get accepted into C2X.
In particular, the idea is to make structs (+ unions, enums)
with the same tag and the sa
Am Mittwoch, den 24.04.2019, 21:30 +0200 schrieb Philipp Klaus Krause:
> Am 24.04.19 um 20:41 schrieb Jeff Law:
> > > > > 4.) Compilers make sure that exposed objects never
> > > > > are allocated next to each other (as Jens proposed).
> > > >
> > > > Ugh. Not sure how you enforce that. Consider
Am Freitag, den 19.04.2019, 10:35 +0100 schrieb Peter Sewell:
> On 19/04/2019, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > Hello Peter,
> >
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:11:43 +0100 Peter Sewell
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 19/04/2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:19:28AM +0200, Jens Gustedt wr
Am Freitag, den 19.04.2019, 10:19 +0200 schrieb Jens Gustedt:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:42:22 +0200 Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:20 PM Uecker, Martin
> > wrote:
> > > 1.) Compilers do not use conditional equivalences for
Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 15:49 +0100 schrieb Peter Sewell:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 14:54, Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 07:42 -0600 schrieb Jeff Law:
> > > On 4/18/19 6:20 AM, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > > > Am Donnerst
Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 07:42 -0600 schrieb Jeff Law:
> On 4/18/19 6:20 AM, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 11:45 +0100 schrieb Peter Sewell:
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 10:32, Richard Biener
> > > wrote:
...
> > 4.) Compile
Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 14:42 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:20 PM Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 11:45 +0100 schrieb Peter Sewell:
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 10:32, Richard Biener
> > > wro
Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 14:30 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:57 PM Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 11:56 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:31 AM Richard Biener
> >
Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 11:45 +0100 schrieb Peter Sewell:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 10:32, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> An equality test of two pointers, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily
> mean that they are interchangeable. I don't see any good way to
> avoid that in a provenance sem
Am Donnerstag, den 18.04.2019, 11:56 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:31 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:12 PM Uecker, Martin
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 17.04.2019, 15:34 +0200 schr
Am Mittwoch, den 17.04.2019, 15:34 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:56 PM Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 17.04.2019, 14:41 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM Uecker, Martin
> > &g
Am Mittwoch, den 17.04.2019, 14:41 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> >
> > > Since
> > > your proposal is based on an abstract machine there isn't anything
> > > like a pointer with mult
Hi Richard,
Am Mittwoch, den 17.04.2019, 11:41 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:15 AM Peter Sewell
> wrote:
> >
> > On 17/04/2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 5:31 PM Peter Sewell
> > > wrote:
...
> > > So this is not what GCC implements whi
Hi,
I want to add run-time support for checking for equality of
the size expressions where pointers to variable-length arrays
are required to be compatible.
I wonder if you could give some advise on how to approach
this. One general question is where this should be added.
For example, I think it
34 matches
Mail list logo
