Re: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-06-05 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/05/13 09:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: -Original Message- From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:49 PM To: Iyer, Balaji V Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457 On 06/04/13 12:58, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Actually

RE: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-06-05 Thread Iyer, Balaji V
> -Original Message- > From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:49 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457 > > On 06/04/13 12:58, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > > >

RE: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-06-04 Thread Iyer, Balaji V
> -Original Message- > From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:49 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457 > > On 06/04/13 12:58, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > > >

Re: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-06-04 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/04/13 12:58, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Actually, you can eliminate the entire if-statement (i.e. remove if-statement and make the body unconditional). This is because, if flag_enable_cilkplus is true and is_cilkplus_reduce_builtin (fundecl) is true, then it would have returned vec_safe_length

RE: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-06-04 Thread Iyer, Balaji V
> -Original Message- > From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:07 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457 > > On 06/04/2013 11:37 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > &

Re: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-06-04 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/04/2013 11:37 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Yes, that does simplify the whole thing. Here is an updated ChangeLog and patch (with testcode) attached. So, is it Ok for trunk? gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog 2013-06-04 Balaji V. Iyer PR C/57457 * c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/pr57457.c: New test. gcc/c

RE: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-06-04 Thread Iyer, Balaji V
> -Original Message- > From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 3:07 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457 > > On 05/31/2013 12:01 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-06-03 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/31/2013 12:01 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: -Original Message- From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:50 AM To: Iyer, Balaji V Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey Subject: Re: [PATCH

RE: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-05-31 Thread Iyer, Balaji V
HI Jeff et al., Forgot to ask in my previous email... Is this Ok for trunk? -Balaji V. Iyer. > -Original Message- > From: Iyer, Balaji V > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:02 PM > To: 'Jeff Law' > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey >

RE: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-05-31 Thread Iyer, Balaji V
> -Original Message- > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- > ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:50 AM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457 >

Re: [PATCH] pr57457

2013-05-31 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/31/2013 07:54 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hello Everyone, This patch will fix a bug reported in PR57457. One of the array notation function was not checking for NULL_TREE before accessing its fields. This patch should fix that issue. A test case is also added. Is this OK for trunk?

[PATCH] pr57457

2013-05-31 Thread Iyer, Balaji V
Hello Everyone, This patch will fix a bug reported in PR57457. One of the array notation function was not checking for NULL_TREE before accessing its fields. This patch should fix that issue. A test case is also added. Is this OK for trunk? Here are the ChangeLog Entries: gcc/c/ChangeL