> DOM bits are good. Richi wants the "redundant" test to be kept around,
> so OK with that change.
Thanks. The test is more duplicated than redundant so I'll remove it anyway.
--
Eric Botcazou
> Can't I have sometihng like
>
> loop (i as iterator)
>begin
> I := F(0);
>exception
> when E => N := N + 1;
>end;
>
> here I would expect PRE to discover I as loop invariant that will cause
> exception to be called just once, not at every iteration of loop?
Yet the follo
On 05/19/14 02:58, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Hi,
this fixes an over-optimization of the GIMPLE optimizer, whereby two otherwise
identical calls to a pure function present in different EH regions are CSEd,
which changes the semantics of the program because the second EH handler is
not invoked:
beg
> Hi,
>
> this fixes an over-optimization of the GIMPLE optimizer, whereby two
> otherwise
> identical calls to a pure function present in different EH regions are CSEd,
> which changes the semantics of the program because the second EH handler is
> not invoked:
>
> begin
> I := F(0);
>
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I thought we had decided a long time ago that pure and const functions could
>> not throw and that was the documented behavior.
>
> No, it's precisely the opposite.
Btw, I agree. For this and other attributes the behavior is that it speci
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Please keep the "redundant" test, it speeds up comparison on hash
>> collisions. As you are on it I'd use size_int (lr).
>
> The redundant test is very redundant, see the line just below it.
Oh... ok ;)
>> I think it's ok to CSE foo (0)
> Can either of you back that up with mailing list archive references?
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-08/msg00043.html which points to a
previous discussion in January. There are 2 tests in the gnat.dg testsuite:
gnat.dg/handle_raise_from_pure.adb
gnat.dg/test_raise_from_pure.ad
> Please keep the "redundant" test, it speeds up comparison on hash
> collisions. As you are on it I'd use size_int (lr).
The redundant test is very redundant, see the line just below it.
> I think it's ok to CSE foo (0) for
>
>try {
> foo (0);
>} catch (...) { side-effect }
>
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:11:25PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I thought we had decided a long time ago that pure and const functions could
> > not throw and that was the documented behavior.
>
> No, it's precisely the opposite.
Can either of you back that up with mailing list archive referen
> I thought we had decided a long time ago that pure and const functions could
> not throw and that was the documented behavior.
No, it's precisely the opposite.
--
Eric Botcazou
> On May 19, 2014, at 2:39 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Eric Botcazou
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this fixes an over-optimization of the GIMPLE optimizer, whereby two
>> otherwise
>> identical calls to a pure function present in different EH regions are CSE
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this fixes an over-optimization of the GIMPLE optimizer, whereby two otherwise
> identical calls to a pure function present in different EH regions are CSEd,
> which changes the semantics of the program because the second EH handler
Hi,
this fixes an over-optimization of the GIMPLE optimizer, whereby two otherwise
identical calls to a pure function present in different EH regions are CSEd,
which changes the semantics of the program because the second EH handler is
not invoked:
begin
I := F(0);
exception
when E
13 matches
Mail list logo
