On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 05:27:35PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> > On 19/11/14 16:39, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 04:32:43PM +, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +if (warning_at (gimple_locat
On 20/11/14 20:55, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 05:27:35PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
+ if (exit_warned && problem_stmts != vNULL)
+{
!problem_stmts.empty ()
/home/marek/src/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c: In function ‘void
maybe_lower_iteration_bound(loop*)’:
/
On 20/11/14 16:27, Richard Biener wrote:
If it's really duplicated code can you split it out to a function?
+ if (OPT_Waggressive_loop_optimizations)
+{
this doesn't do what you think it does ;) The variable to check is
warn_aggressive_loop_optimizations.
+ if (exit_warned && pr
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 05:27:35PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> + if (exit_warned && problem_stmts != vNULL)
> +{
>
> !problem_stmts.empty ()
/home/marek/src/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c: In function ‘void
maybe_lower_iteration_bound(loop*)’:
/home/marek/src/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 19/11/14 16:39, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 04:32:43PM +, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> +if (warning_at (gimple_location (elt->stmt),
>>> +OPT_Waggressive_lo
On 19/11/14 16:39, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 04:32:43PM +, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
+if (warning_at (gimple_location (elt->stmt),
+OPT_Waggressive_loop_optimizations,
+"Loop exit may on
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 04:32:43PM +, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> + if (warning_at (gimple_location (elt->stmt),
> + OPT_Waggressive_loop_optimizations,
> + "Loop exit may only be reached after
> undefined behaviour.
On 13/11/14 21:35, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 12/11/14 11:15, Richard Biener wrote:
Please find a better way to communicate possibly_undefined_stmt than
enlarging struct loop. Like associating it with the niter bound
we record (so you can also have more than one).
Unfortunately, the bounds get r
On 12/11/14 11:15, Richard Biener wrote:
Please find a better way to communicate possibly_undefined_stmt than
enlarging struct loop. Like associating it with the niter bound
we record (so you can also have more than one).
Unfortunately, the bounds get regenerated frequently, but the upper
bou
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> This patch adds the following warning message:
>
> undefined.c:9:20: warning: statement may be undefined in the final loop
> iteration. [-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
>for (i = 0; array[i] && i < 5; i++)
> ^
>
> (Wh
Ping.
On 05/11/14 21:45, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
This patch adds the following warning message:
undefined.c:9:20: warning: statement may be undefined in the final loop
iteration. [-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
for (i = 0; array[i] && i < 5; i++)
^
(Where the code ought
This patch adds the following warning message:
undefined.c:9:20: warning: statement may be undefined in the final loop
iteration. [-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
for (i = 0; array[i] && i < 5; i++)
^
(Where the code ought to read "i < 5 && array[i]".)
The tree-ssa loo
12 matches
Mail list logo