On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 02:13:39PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 01:30:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > gimplify_modify_expr has:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!gim
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 02:13:39PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 01:30:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > gimplify_modify_expr has:
> > > >
> > > > if (!gimple_call_noreturn_p (assign))
> > > > gimple_cal
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 01:30:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > gimplify_modify_expr has:
> > >
> > > if (!gimple_call_noreturn_p (assign))
> > > gimple_call_set_lhs (assign, *to_p);
> >
> > Ok, it seems to be too early then - move i
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 01:30:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > gimplify_modify_expr has:
> >
> > if (!gimple_call_noreturn_p (assign))
> > gimple_call_set_lhs (assign, *to_p);
>
> Ok, it seems to be too early then - move it after the folding.
That wouldn't help all the other e
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:31:47PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:15:00PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > Well, then the __cxa_pure_virtual testcases ICE again, but th
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:31:47PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:15:00PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > Well, then the __cxa_pure_virtual testcases ICE again, but the
> > > > pr59622-5.C
> > > > testcase ICEs anyway,
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:15:00PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Well, then the __cxa_pure_virtual testcases ICE again, but the pr59622-5.C
> > > testcase ICEs anyway, so here is a different patch (untested so far except
> > > for the tests). The is
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:15:00PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Well, then the __cxa_pure_virtual testcases ICE again, but the pr59622-5.C
> > testcase ICEs anyway, so here is a different patch (untested so far except
> > for the tests). The issue with the calls is that when fold_stmt is done
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:46:11AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > + /* If fndecl (like __builtin_unreachable or
> > > + __cxa_pure_virtual) takes no arguments, doesn't have
> > > + return value and is noreturn, if the call does
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:46:11AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > + /* If fndecl (like __builtin_unreachable or
> > +__cxa_pure_virtual) takes no arguments, doesn't have
> > +return value and is noreturn, if the call doesn't have
> > +lhs or lhs isn't S
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:19:02PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:15:40PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > I start to think this is a too complex transform for stmt fol
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:19:02PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:15:40PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > I start to think this is a too complex transform for stmt folding ...
> > >
> > > Alternatively do update_call_f
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:15:40PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > I start to think this is a too complex transform for stmt folding ...
> >
> > Alternatively do update_call_from_tree (gsi, get_or_create_ssa_default_def
> > (cfun, create_tmp_var (TRE
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:15:40PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I start to think this is a too complex transform for stmt folding ...
>
> Alternatively do update_call_from_tree (gsi, get_or_create_ssa_default_def
> (cfun, create_tmp_var (TREE_TYPE (lhs.
The lhs might not be is_gimple_reg
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:45:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > I prefer to always do this, not do the fancy insertion-before. That
> > > would do repeated folding for
> > >
> > >fold_stmt (gsi)
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:45:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I prefer to always do this, not do the fancy insertion-before. That
> > would do repeated folding for
> >
> >fold_stmt (gsi);
> >fold_stmt (gsi);
> >fold_stmt (gsi);
> >
>
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:45:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I prefer to always do this, not do the fancy insertion-before. That
> would do repeated folding for
>
>fold_stmt (gsi);
>fold_stmt (gsi);
>fold_stmt (gsi);
>
> where the last two should be a no-op.
I don't see how is
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:33:50AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:24:53AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Anyway, back to the original patch, so do you prefer something like
> this instead? I.e. handle only __builti
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:33:50AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:24:53AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Anyway, back to the original patch, so do you prefer something like
this instead? I.e. handle only __builtin_unreachable and
__cxa_pure_virtual specially, and not
19 matches
Mail list logo
