On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:04 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 10:53 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:59 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 11:06 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM, David Malcolm
>> >> wr
On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 10:53 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:59 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 11:06 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM, David Malcolm
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 11:45 +0100, Richard Biener
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:59 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 11:06 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 11:45 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm
>> >> wro
On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 11:06 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 11:45 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On 11/17/14 03:06, Richard Biener wrote:
Also, presumably if this were merged, it would require a followup with
the gimple to gimple * fixup you wanted? (which we talked about doing as
an early stage3 thing IIRC [1]).
Yeah, that would be nice (to remind people - this is about getting rid
of
On 11/14/14 08:27, David Malcolm wrote:
I just don't like all the as_a/is_a stuff enforced everywhere,
it means more typing, more temporaries, more indentation.
So, as I view it, instead of the checks being done cheaply (yes, I think
the gimple checking as we have right now is very cheap) under
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 11:45 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 11:45 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >
On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 11:45 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm w
On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 11:45 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm w
On 11/13/2014 09:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/13/2014 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm
wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
On 11/13/2014 05:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
On Sat, 2014-11-0
On 13 November 2014 10:45, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Hmm.
>
> struct assign;
> struct base {
> operator assign *() const { return (assign *)this; }
> };
> struct assign : base {
> };
>
> void foo (assign *);
> void bar (base *b)
> {
> foo (b);
> }
>
> doesn't work, but
>
> void bar (base &b)
>
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 14:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrot
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 08:26 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 14:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > To be constructive here - the above case
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 14:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Richard
On 11/11/2014 09:30 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I just don't like all the as_a/is_a stuff enforced everywhere,
it means more typing, more temporaries, more indentation.
So, as I view it, instead of the checks being done cheaply (yes, I think
the gimple checking as we have right now is very cheap) un
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 14:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > > To be constructive here - the above case is
> I just don't like all the as_a/is_a stuff enforced everywhere,
> it means more typing, more temporaries, more indentation.
> So, as I view it, instead of the checks being done cheaply (yes, I think
> the gimple checking as we have right now is very cheap) under the
> hood by the accessors (gimple
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 14:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > To be constructive here - the above case is from within a
> > > GIMPLE_ASSIGN case label
> > > and thus
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 14:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > To be constructive here - the above case is from within a
>> > GIMPLE_ASSIGN case label
>> > and thus I'd have exp
On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 14:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > To be constructive here - the above case is from within a
> > GIMPLE_ASSIGN case label
> > and thus I'd have expected
> >
> > case GIMPLE_ASSIGN:
> > {
> >
On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 13:07 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> gcc/ChangeLog.gimple-classes:
> >> * tree-ssa-tail-merge.c (same_succ_hash): Add checked cast.
> >> (gi
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> To be constructive here - the above case is from within a
> GIMPLE_ASSIGN case label
> and thus I'd have expected
>
> case GIMPLE_ASSIGN:
> {
> gassign *a1 = as_a (s1);
> gassign *a2 = as_a (s2);
>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> gcc/ChangeLog.gimple-classes:
>> * tree-ssa-tail-merge.c (same_succ_hash): Add checked cast.
>> (gimple_equal_p): Add checked casts.
>> ---
>> gcc/ChangeLog.gimple-cla
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:01:45PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Just a comment as these patches flow by - I think this is a huge step
> backwards from "enforcing" s1/s2 being a gimple_assign inside
> gimple_assign_rhs1 to this as_a boilerplate at _each_ callsite!
FWIW, I feel the same way. Mor
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:01:45PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c
> > @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ same_succ_hash (const_same_succ e)
> >
> >hstate.add_int (gimple_code (stmt));
> >if (is_gimple_assign (stmt))
> > -
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog.gimple-classes:
> * tree-ssa-tail-merge.c (same_succ_hash): Add checked cast.
> (gimple_equal_p): Add checked casts.
> ---
> gcc/ChangeLog.gimple-classes | 5 +
> gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c| 8 +---
>
gcc/ChangeLog.gimple-classes:
* tree-ssa-tail-merge.c (same_succ_hash): Add checked cast.
(gimple_equal_p): Add checked casts.
---
gcc/ChangeLog.gimple-classes | 5 +
gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c| 8 +---
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/
30 matches
Mail list logo
