https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #20 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Fri Nov 25 08:03:51 2016
New Revision: 242858
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242858&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-25 Jakub Jelinek
Prath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #19 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> Comment on attachment 40139 [details]
> fix formatting of patch in comment 13
>
> LGTM.
Thanks, I have started bootstrap on x86_64-unknown-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 40139
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40139
fix formatting of patch in comment 13
LGTM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #17 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> For the tests, I think they would just pass on VMS. In one case you are
> comparing if 0x7fffULL <= (unsigned int) something, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #16 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40139
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40139&action=edit
fix formatting of patch in comment 13
Done formatting changes in this version.
Does it look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the tests, I think they would just pass on VMS. In one case you are
comparing if 0x7fffULL <= (unsigned int) something, that is for
32-bit int clearly never true and should be folded. And i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 40137
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40137
check precision of ptrdiff_type_node and lhs type is equal
Formatting is wrong. && should not be at the end of line, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #13 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40137
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40137&action=edit
check precision of ptrdiff_type_node and lhs type is equal
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for the suggest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or perhaps check ptrdiff_type_node != NULL && TYPE_PRECISION
(ptrdiff_type_node) == TYPE_PRECISION (size_type_node) before trying to
optimize this?
I mean, on VMS it might be fine if strlen returns 0xfff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #11 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Comment on attachment 40136 [details]
> move ptrdiff_type_node initialization to build_common_tree_nodes
>
> So, what do you want to do for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 40136
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40136
move ptrdiff_type_node initialization to build_common_tree_nodes
So, what do you want to do for VRP in the vms case whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #9 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40136
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40136&action=edit
move ptrdiff_type_node initialization to build_common_tree_nodes
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> case FMT_LEN_z:
> dirtype = sign ? signed_type_for (size_type_node) : size_type_node;
> break;
>
> case FMT_LEN_t:
> dirtype = sign ? p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #2)
> > Hi,
> > From the trace, it seems ptrdiff_type_node is set to NULL for ada ?
> > Either we can guard setting rang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Even for Fortran and other non-C FEs I think ptrdiff_type_node isn't what
> you expect it to be. Wouldn't it be better to use signed_type_for (type) as
> the ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Ugh, and lto does lto/lto-lang.c: ptrdiff_type_node = integer_type_node;
(bogus, possibly causes wrong-code if it's ever used, make sure to remove that
init as well)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even for Fortran and other non-C FEs I think ptrdiff_type_node isn't what you
expect it to be. Wouldn't it be better to use signed_type_for (type) as the
type instead (where type is the type of strlen's lhs,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #2)
> Hi,
> From the trace, it seems ptrdiff_type_node is set to NULL for ada ?
> Either we can guard setting range for CFN_BUILTIN_STRLEN by checking
> ptrtdiff_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
From the trace, it seems ptrdiff_type_node is set to NULL for ada ?
Either we can guard setting range for CFN_BUILTIN_STRLEN by checking
ptrtdiff_type_node is non null, or make vrp_val_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|*-*-solaris2.* |*-*-solaris2.*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78501
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
22 matches
Mail list logo
