On 11/13/2017 06:21 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I have a different concern with the general idea of moving these
> kinds of warnings into passes of their own. It would unavoidably
> result in duplicating some code from the optimization passes (at
> a minimum, the GIMPLE traversal, but likely more th
On 11/14/2017 01:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I suspect once you're dealing with C++ code you run into the issue
> that even early inlining exposes code with forwprop run on it
> before running forwprop again on the inlined-into body.
>
> So the IPA issues start very early. Of course if you
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 01:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/02/2017 05:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There were elaborate transforms of ptr + CST to ptr->a.b.c[3] in the
> > > > past. We h
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 01:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > It's the usual issue with an optimizing compiler vs. a static analyzer.
> > We try to get rid of the little semantic details of the input languages
> > that in the end do not matter for code-generation bu
On 11/10/2017 01:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/02/2017 05:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
There were elaborate transforms of ptr + CST to ptr->a.b.c[3] in the
past. We have ripped out _most_ of them because of bad interaction
with dependence analysis an
On 11/10/2017 01:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> It's the usual issue with an optimizing compiler vs. a static analyzer.
> We try to get rid of the little semantic details of the input languages
> that in the end do not matter for code-generation but that makes
> using those semantic details hard
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/02/2017 05:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >
> > There were elaborate transforms of ptr + CST to ptr->a.b.c[3] in the
> > past. We have ripped out _most_ of them because of bad interaction
> > with dependence analysis and _b_o_s warnings.
> >
> > Bu
On 11/02/2017 05:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> There were elaborate transforms of ptr + CST to ptr->a.b.c[3] in the
> past. We have ripped out _most_ of them because of bad interaction
> with dependence analysis and _b_o_s warnings.
>
> But for example PRE might still end up propagating
>
>
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/30/2017 02:56 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On October 30, 2017 9:13:04 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor
> > wrote:
> > > On 10/30/2017 01:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On October 30, 2017 4:19:25 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/30/2017 05:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 10/30/2017 03:48 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 10/30/2017 09:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>> On 10/30/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> > In my w
I of course don't want to break anything. I didn't see any fallout
in my testing and I normally test all the front ends, including Ada,
but let me check to make sure I tested it this time (I had made some
temporary changes to my build script and may have disabled it.) Let
me double check it afte
On 10/30/2017 05:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/30/2017 03:48 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 10/30/2017 09:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I f
On 10/30/2017 03:48 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/30/2017 09:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/30/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I found
it important to detect both out of bounds array indices as
On 10/29/2017 10:01 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I found
> it important to detect both out of bounds array indices as well
> as offsets in calls to restrict-qualified functions like strcpy.
> GCC already detects some of these cases but my tests f
On 10/30/2017 09:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/30/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>>> In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I found
>>> it important to detect both out of bounds array indices as well
>>> as offsets in calls
On 10/30/2017 02:56 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 30, 2017 9:13:04 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/30/2017 01:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 30, 2017 4:19:25 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor
wrote:
On 10/30/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin
On October 30, 2017 9:13:04 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>On 10/30/2017 01:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On October 30, 2017 4:19:25 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor
> wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> In my work on -
On 10/30/2017 01:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 30, 2017 4:19:25 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/30/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I found
it important to detect both out o
On October 30, 2017 4:19:25 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>On 10/30/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>>> In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I found
>>> it important to detect both out of bounds array indices as well
>>> a
On 10/30/2017 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I found
it important to detect both out of bounds array indices as well
as offsets in calls to restrict-qualified functions like strcpy.
GCC already det
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I found
> it important to detect both out of bounds array indices as well
> as offsets in calls to restrict-qualified functions like strcpy.
> GCC already detects some of these cases but my tests for
In my work on -Wrestrict, to issue meaningful warnings, I found
it important to detect both out of bounds array indices as well
as offsets in calls to restrict-qualified functions like strcpy.
GCC already detects some of these cases but my tests for
the enhanced warning exposed a few gaps.
The at
22 matches
Mail list logo
