On 10/14/2015 08:22 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
I think you could trigger bogus CSE of dereferences of literal addresses
from different address-spaces.
Good catch. You're spot on with that.
r~
int test(void)
{
int __seg_fs *f = (int __seg_fs *)16;
int __seg_gs *g = (int __seg_gs *)16;
On 10/14/2015 03:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/14/2015 02:49 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
The problem here is we don't know what address space the *0 is going to
hit,
right?
Correct, not before we do the walk of stmt to see what's pres
On 10/13/2015 02:59 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/14/2015 02:49 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
The problem here is we don't know what address space the *0 is going
to hit,
right?
Correct, not before we do the walk of stmt to see what's present.
So the address space information isn't part of the addr
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/14/2015 02:49 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem here is we don't know what address space the *0 is going to
>>> hit,
>>> right?
>>
>>
>> Correct, not before we do th
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 02:49 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> The problem here is we don't know what address space the *0 is going to
>> hit,
>> right?
>
>
> Correct, not before we do the walk of stmt to see what's present.
>
>> Isn't that also an issue
On 10/14/2015 02:49 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
The problem here is we don't know what address space the *0 is going to hit,
right?
Correct, not before we do the walk of stmt to see what's present.
Isn't that also an issue for code generation as well?
What sort of problem are you thinking of? I ha
On 10/13/2015 04:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/12/2015 09:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
The check_loadstore change should instead have adjusted the
flag_delete_null_pointer_checks guard in
infer_nonnull_range_by_dereference.
No
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 09:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
The check_loadstore change should instead have adjusted the
flag_delete_null_pointer_checks guard in
infer_nonnull_range_by_dereference.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, that doesn't
On 10/12/2015 09:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
The check_loadstore change should instead have adjusted the
flag_delete_null_pointer_checks guard in
infer_nonnull_range_by_dereference.
Nope, that doesn't work. You have to wait until you see the actual MEM
being dereferenced before you can look
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/08/2015 09:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>> * target.def (TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_ZERO_ADDRESS_VALID): New.
>>> * targhooks.h (default_addr_space_zero_a
On 10/08/2015 09:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
* target.def (TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_ZERO_ADDRESS_VALID): New.
* targhooks.h (default_addr_space_zero_address_valid): Declare.
* targhooks.c (default_addr_space_zero_addr
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> * target.def (TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_ZERO_ADDRESS_VALID): New.
> * targhooks.h (default_addr_space_zero_address_valid): Declare.
> * targhooks.c (default_addr_space_zero_address_valid): New.
> * doc/tm.texi, doc/
* target.def (TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_ZERO_ADDRESS_VALID): New.
* targhooks.h (default_addr_space_zero_address_valid): Declare.
* targhooks.c (default_addr_space_zero_address_valid): New.
* doc/tm.texi, doc/tm.texi.in: Update.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_addr_space_
13 matches
Mail list logo
