On Jan 16, 2013, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Thanks, I started a bootstrap/regtest run. If everything goes as
>> expected, the results will be available in ~10h from now...
> The results looks good [1], no regressions with patch.
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-01/msg01706.html
Than
On 2013-01-16 20:16, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Be conservative about negative sizes on symbols, use abs elsewhere
From: Alexandre Oliva
for gcc/ChangeLog
PR rtl-optimization/55547
PR rtl-optimization/53827
PR debug/53671
PR debug/49888
* alias.c (memrefs_c
On 2013-01-16 18:40, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
That said, I question the change of <= to == 0. If negative, we don't
know how much overlap there is as far as I can see.
Why not? Since the addresses are constants, and the negative sizes are
just the adjusted sizes, negated to indicate they were c
On Jan 16, 2013, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I notice that these expressions (including the first hunk that uses
> ifs) are now all the same. It would seem extremely prudent to pull
> this out to a function so that they stay the same.
Here's a revised patch that makes that change, making the over
On Jan 16, 2013, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I notice that these expressions (including the first hunk that uses
> ifs) are now all the same.
*nod*
> It would seem extremely prudent to pull
> this out to a function so that they stay the same.
ack, will do.
> That said, I question the change of
On 01/15/2013 08:29 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
if (rtx_equal_for_memref_p (x, y))
{
- if (xsize <= 0 || ysize <= 0)
+ if (xsize == 0 || ysize == 0)
return 1;
- if (c >= 0 && xsize > c)
+ if (c >= 0 && abs (xsize) - c > 0)
return 1;
- if (c < 0 &&
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On 01/15/2013 08:24 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Ok, it's really an alias.c bug, but it is Alpha, and aoliva has already
provided an unreviewed patch...
>>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
>>
>>> The patch in #C4
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On 01/15/2013 08:24 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>> Ok, it's really an alias.c bug, but it is Alpha, and aoliva has already
>>> provided an unreviewed patch...
>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
>
>> The patch in #C4 is
On Jan 15, 2013, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/15/2013 08:24 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> Ok, it's really an alias.c bug, but it is Alpha, and aoliva has already
>> provided an unreviewed patch...
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
> The patch in #C4 is ok.
Thanks, I'm che
