Hi,
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 13:44, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Tamar Christina writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > The 10/26/2020 11:29, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> Tamar Christina writes:
> >> >/* We can't do anything smart if the amount to copy is not constant.
> >> > */
>
Tamar Christina writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
> The 10/26/2020 11:29, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Tamar Christina writes:
>> >/* We can't do anything smart if the amount to copy is not constant. */
>> >if (!CONST_INT_P (operands[2]))
>> > return false;
>> >
>> > - n = INTVAL (operands[2
Hi Richard,
The 10/26/2020 11:29, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Tamar Christina writes:
> >/* We can't do anything smart if the amount to copy is not constant. */
> >if (!CONST_INT_P (operands[2]))
> > return false;
> >
> > - n = INTVAL (operands[2]);
> > + /* This may get truncated
Tamar Christina writes:
>/* We can't do anything smart if the amount to copy is not constant. */
>if (!CONST_INT_P (operands[2]))
> return false;
>
> - n = INTVAL (operands[2]);
> + /* This may get truncated but that's fine as it would be above our maximum
> + memset inline li
Hi All,
Currently the inline memcpy expansion code for AArch64 is using a signed int
to hold the number of elements to copy. When you giver give it a value larger
than INT_MAX it will overflow.
The overflow causes the maximum number of instructions we want to expand to
check to fail since this a
