On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
This program appears to me to be invalid according to C99 6.7.3.1,
which is the only def
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> This program appears to me to be invalid according to C99 6.7.3.1,
>>> which is the only definition of restrict that we have.
>>>
>>> If P is assigned the value of a poi
Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This program appears to me to be invalid according to C99 6.7.3.1,
>> which is the only definition of restrict that we have.
>>
>> If P is assigned the value of a pointer expression E that is based
>> on another restricted pointer object P2, ass
Hi,
> This program appears to me to be invalid according to C99 6.7.3.1,
> which is the only definition of restrict that we have.
>
> If P is assigned the value of a pointer expression E that is based
> on another restricted pointer object P2, associated with block B2,
> then either t
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> int foo (int *__restrict p)
> {
> int *__restrict q;
> int v;
> q = p + 1;
> q = q - 1;
> v = *q;
> *p = 1;
> return v + *q;
> }
> extern void abort (void);
> int main()
> {
> int i = 0;
> if (foo (&i) != 1)
> abort ();
> retur
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:31:18AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 06:21, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think the only reasonable thing to do is
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:31:18AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 06:21, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think the only reasonable thing to do is to rip out the broken
> > > restrict pointer handling comp
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:31:18AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 06:21, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think the only reasonable thing to do is to rip out the broken
> > restrict pointer handling completely.
> >
> > Any better ideas?
>
> I will assume
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 06:21, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think the only reasonable thing to do is to rip out the broken
> > restrict pointer handling completely.
> >
> > Any better ideas?
>
> I will assume that this program is
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 06:21, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the only reasonable thing to do is to rip out the broken
> restrict pointer handling completely.
>
> Any better ideas?
I will assume that this program is valid. I am not familiar enough
with the restrict definit
With looking at PRs 37742 and 37955 I reminded myself of our broken
restrict implementation which tries to model restrict semantics
within our type-based alias set framework. The implementation
heavily relies on correct tracking of restrict bases
(DECL_BASED_ON_RESTRICT_P/DECL_GET_RESTRICT_BASE)
11 matches
Mail list logo
