Mike Stump writes:
> On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
>>> does nor why.
>>
>> Taking the s
On 13/8/5 下午10:24, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 13/8/5 10:06 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This
On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 13/8/5 10:06 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
is sufficiently old and noisy
On 13/8/5 10:06 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
>>> does nor why.
>
[ sorry for the dup ]
On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
>> does nor why.
>
> Taking the same
On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
>> does nor why.
>
> Taking the same example in my first post
On 4 August 2013 17:14:36 Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
> does nor why.
Taking the same example in my first post:
extern
On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
> does nor why.
Taking the same example in my first post:
extern void weakfun() __attribute__((weak,visibility("hid
On 13/8/1 5:16 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 14 July 2013 19:43, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Chung-Lin Tang
>> wrote:
>>> Ping.
>>
>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even su
On 14 July 2013 19:43, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Chung-Lin Tang
> wrote:
>> Ping.
>
> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
> does nor why.
Chung-Lin Tang, can you
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Ping.
Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
does nor why.
Thanks. Diego.
Ping.
On 2013/6/20 03:01 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Ping again?
>
> On 13/6/11 5:20 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> ping, CCing middle-end maintainers for review.
>>
>> On 31 May 2013 10:13, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> On 13/5/15 8:12 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Chung-Lin Tang write
Ping again?
On 13/6/11 5:20 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> ping, CCing middle-end maintainers for review.
>
> On 31 May 2013 10:13, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 13/5/15 8:12 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
On 13/5/10 6:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Chu
ping, CCing middle-end maintainers for review.
On 31 May 2013 10:13, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 13/5/15 8:12 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
>>> On 13/5/10 6:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Chung-Lin Tang writes:
> +case UNSPEC:
> + /* Reach for a co
On 13/5/15 8:12 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
>> On 13/5/10 6:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
+case UNSPEC:
+ /* Reach for a contained symbol. */
+ return nonzero_address_p (XVECEXP (x, 0, 0));
>>>
>>> I don't think
Chung-Lin Tang writes:
> On 13/5/10 6:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
>>> +case UNSPEC:
>>> + /* Reach for a contained symbol. */
>>> + return nonzero_address_p (XVECEXP (x, 0, 0));
>>
>> I don't think this is safe. UNSPECs really are unspecified :-),
>>
On 13/5/10 6:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
>> +case UNSPEC:
>> + /* Reach for a contained symbol. */
>> + return nonzero_address_p (XVECEXP (x, 0, 0));
>
> I don't think this is safe. UNSPECs really are unspecified :-),
> so we can't assume that (unspec
Chung-Lin Tang writes:
> +case UNSPEC:
> + /* Reach for a contained symbol. */
> + return nonzero_address_p (XVECEXP (x, 0, 0));
I don't think this is safe. UNSPECs really are unspecified :-),
so we can't assume that (unspec X) is nonzero simply because X is.
Richard
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 05:52:26PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>2013-05-09 Chung-Lin Tang
>
> PR target/32219
> * rtlanal.c (nonzero_address_p): Robustify checking by look
>recursively into PIC constant offsets and (CONST (UNSPEC ...))
> expressions.
>Index: rtlanal.
Hi, with reference to the old dicussion on PR 32219:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
It seems that a patch was submitted to put the DECL_WEAK check before
the visibility check, but that patch was never approved or applied, due
to concerns in the wording of surrounding comments:
h
20 matches
Mail list logo
