Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-10 Thread Qing Zhao
Richard and Martin, thanks for the info. > On Jul 10, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> Is the above condition on variable warn_stringop_overflow unnecessary? >> all the warnings inside check_access are controlled by >> OPT_Wstringop_overflow_. > > Well, the condition certainly saves

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-10 Thread Martin Sebor
On 07/10/2018 09:14 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: On Jul 9, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: check_access() calls warning_at() to issue warnings, and that function only issues warnings if they are enabled, so the guard isn't necessary to make it work this way. Okay I see. then, in the current

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-10 Thread Richard Biener
On July 10, 2018 5:14:37 PM GMT+02:00, Qing Zhao wrote: > >> On Jul 9, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >> check_access() calls warning_at() to issue warnings, and that >> function only issues warnings if they are enabled, so the guard >> isn't necessary to make it work this way. > >Okay

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-10 Thread Qing Zhao
> On Jul 9, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > check_access() calls warning_at() to issue warnings, and that > function only issues warnings if they are enabled, so the guard > isn't necessary to make it work this way. Okay I see. then, in the current code: (for routine expand_builtin_

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-09 Thread Martin Sebor
On 07/09/2018 01:28 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: Hi, Martin, thanks a lot for your comments. On Jul 5, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: One of the basic design principles that I myself have accidentally violated in the past is that warning options should not impact the emitted object code. I

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-09 Thread Qing Zhao
Hi, Martin, thanks a lot for your comments. > On Jul 5, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > One of the basic design principles that I myself have > accidentally violated in the past is that warning options > should not impact the emitted object code. I don't think > your patch actually

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-05 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/05/2018 09:35 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: > Hi, > > I have sent two emails with the updated patches on 7/3: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00065.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00070.html > > however, these 2 emails  were not successfully forwarded to the >

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-05 Thread Martin Sebor
On 07/05/2018 09:46 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: Hi, I have sent two emails with the updated patches on 7/3: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00065.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00070.html however, these 2 emails were not successfully forwarded to the gcc-patches@gc

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-05 Thread Qing Zhao
Hi, I have sent two emails with the updated patches on 7/3: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00065.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00070.html however, these 2 emails were not successfully forwarded to the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list. So, I am sending t

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-02 Thread Qing Zhao
Hi, Jeff, thanks a lot for your review and comments. I have addressed your comments,updated the patch, retested on both aarch64 and x86. The major changes in this version compared to the previous version are: 1. in routine expand_builtin_memcmp: * move the inlining transformation AFTER

[version 2] Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-07-02 Thread Qing Zhao
Hi, Jeff, thanks a lot for your review and comments. I have addressed your comments,updated the patch, retested on both aarch64 and x86. The major changes in this version compared to the previous version are: 1. in routine “expand_builtin_memcmp”: * move the inlining transformation AFTE

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-06-28 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/28/2018 01:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, Jeff Law wrote: > >> >> On 06/18/2018 09:37 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is the 3rd (and the last) patch for PR78809: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809 >>> Inline strcmp with small constant s

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-06-28 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 06/18/2018 09:37 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this is the 3rd (and the last) patch for PR78809: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809 > > Inline strcmp with small constant strings > > > > The design doc for PR78809 is at:

Re: [PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-06-27 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/18/2018 09:37 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: > Hi, > > this is the 3rd (and the last) patch for PR78809: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809 > Inline strcmp with small constant strings > > The design doc for PR78809 is at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg83822.

[PATCH][Middle-end]3rd patch of PR78809

2018-06-18 Thread Qing Zhao
Hi, this is the 3rd (and the last) patch for PR78809: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809 Inline strcmp with small constant strings The design doc for PR78809 is at: https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg83822.html this patch is for the third part of change of PR78809.