On Mar 8, 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 2:04 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>> Is the emitted warning correct?
> For the reduced testcase yes, if !aio_bh_poll_s (or !aio_bh_poll_bh)
> the stored pointer remains local.
*nod*, before the recent patch, it would have failed to iss
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 2:04 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 3/3/23 12:12, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:30 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 17, 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> * gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
> (pass_waccess::check_dangling_st
On 3/3/23 12:12, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:30 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
* gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
(pass_waccess::check_dangling_stores): Skip non-stores.
for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:30 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >> * gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
> >> (pass_waccess::check_dangling_stores): Skip non-stores.
> >>
> >> for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> >>
> >> * g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer.C (warn_init_ref_member
On Feb 17, 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>> * gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
>> (pass_waccess::check_dangling_stores): Skip non-stores.
>>
>> for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>>
>> * g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer.C (warn_init_ref_member): Add
>> two new variants, one fixed, one xfailed.
>> * c-c++-common/
On Feb 17, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Now, really, I did not get as far as trying to make sense of the
> algorithm in there (get_ref definitely doesn't do what its name suggests
> to me), I just saw a bunch of weirdnesses in blackbox testing and
> failing variations, that seemed to suggest so
Hi, richi,
On Feb 17, 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> It seems the case should run into
Yeah, but when the stmt is _7 = this_2(D), lhs is _7, whereas
lhs_ref.ref is this_2(D), a parm decl's default def, so def_stmt is a
gimple_nop, and this is not a decl_by_reference, so we don't skip
stores.add,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:09 AM Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
> check_dangling_stores has some weirdnesses that causes its behavior to
> change when the target ABI requires C++ ctors to return this: while
> scanning stmts backwards in e.g. the AS ctor on a target that returns
> this i
check_dangling_stores has some weirdnesses that causes its behavior to
change when the target ABI requires C++ ctors to return this: while
scanning stmts backwards in e.g. the AS ctor on a target that returns
this in ctors, the scan first encounters a copy of this to the SSA
name used to hold the
