On 12-02-15 23:51, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 12-02-15 14:57, Michael Matz wrote:
I'm not really sure yet why std_gimplify_va_arg_expr has a part
commented out. Michael, can you comment?
I think I did that because of SSA form. The old sequence calculated
vatmp = valist;
vatmp = vatmp +
On February 13, 2015 10:40:17 PM CET, Tom de Vries
wrote:
>On 13-02-15 09:57, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> [ We're still expanding ifn_va_arg before the va_list_gpr/fpr_size
>>> >optimization. ]
>> Yeah, and the point of the exercise was of course to change that;)
>
>Well, there are two parts.
>
>Th
On 13-02-15 09:57, Richard Biener wrote:
[ We're still expanding ifn_va_arg before the va_list_gpr/fpr_size
>optimization. ]
Yeah, and the point of the exercise was of course to change that;)
Well, there are two parts.
The first is postpone expansion of va_arg to before the va_list_gpr/fpr_si
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 12-02-15 14:57, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
My idea was to not generate temporaries and hence copies for
non-scalar types, but rather construct the "result" of va_arg directly
>
On 12-02-15 14:57, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
My idea was to not generate temporaries and hence copies for
non-scalar types, but rather construct the "result" of va_arg directly
into the original LHS (that would then also trivially solve the
problem of nno
Hi,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > My idea was to not generate temporaries and hence copies for
> > non-scalar types, but rather construct the "result" of va_arg directly
> > into the original LHS (that would then also trivially solve the
> > problem of nno-copyable types).
>
>
On 10-02-15 14:46, Richard Biener wrote:
This patch is a way to achieve that gimplification doesn't call the actual
>gimplify_expr langhook, and it fixes the failure. But I'm guessing that's
>not the proper way to fix this.
More like
Index: gcc/tree.c
===
On 10-02-15 17:57, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
I've added two modifications to gimplify_modify_expr:
- the WITH_SIZE_EXPR in which the CALL_TREE is wrapped, is dropped after
gimplification, but we need the size expression at expansion in pass_stdarg.
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I've added two modifications to gimplify_modify_expr:
> - the WITH_SIZE_EXPR in which the CALL_TREE is wrapped, is dropped after
> gimplification, but we need the size expression at expansion in pass_stdarg.
> So I added the size expression as ar
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 10-02-15 11:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> The single failing testcase (both with and without -m32) is
>>> >g++.dg/torture/pr45843.C:
>>> >...
>>> >./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum:FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr45843.C -O2 -flto
>>> >-fno-use-link
On 10-02-15 11:10, Richard Biener wrote:
The single failing testcase (both with and without -m32) is
>g++.dg/torture/pr45843.C:
>...
>./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum:FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr45843.C -O2 -flto
>-fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (internal compiler error)
>...
>
>The failure
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [ was: Re: pass_stdarg problem when run after pass_lim ]
>
> On 03-02-15 14:36, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically, that fix breaks the va_list_gpr/fpr_size optimization, so
>>> I've
..
The segfault happens because we're calling is_really_empty_class for struct S,
and TYPE_BINFO is NULL_TREE, which causes BINFO_BASE_ITERATE to segfault. I'm
not sure yet what this issue is or how this is supposed to be fixed.
Thanks,
- Tom
Postpone expanding va_ar
13 matches
Mail list logo
