> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 6:02 AM
> To: Marc Glisse; Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Richard Biener; GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: PR 58958: wrong aliasing info
>
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:40:02AM
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Well, you cannot use the size argument unchanged for the null return case.
>> You could fallback to get_base_address and -1 size in that case.
>
>
> Like this? Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-unknown
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:40:02AM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >Well, you cannot use the size argument unchanged for the null
> >return case. You could fallback to get_base_address and -1 size
> >in that case.
>
> Like this? Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> (I think I'll disable
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Well, you cannot use the size argument unchanged for the null return
case. You could fallback to get_base_address and -1 size in that case.
Like this? Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
(I think I'll disable cilk for my future bootstraps
Marc Glisse wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Marc Glisse
>wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marc Glisse
>
>>
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marc Glisse
wrote:
Hello,
the issue was described in the PR a
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marc Glisse
>>> wrote:
Hello,
the issue was described in the PR and the mess
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
the issue was described in the PR and the message linked from there.
ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_size calls get_ref_base_and_extent, which
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
the issue was described in the PR and the message linked from there.
ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_size calls get_ref_base_and_extent, which may
detect an array_ref of variable index, but ao_ref_in
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> the issue was described in the PR and the message linked from there.
>> ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_size calls get_ref_base_and_extent, which may
>> detect an array_ref of var
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the issue was described in the PR and the message linked from there.
> ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_size calls get_ref_base_and_extent, which may
> detect an array_ref of variable index, but ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_size
> never learns o
Hello,
the issue was described in the PR and the message linked from there.
ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_size calls get_ref_base_and_extent, which may
detect an array_ref of variable index, but ao_ref_init_from_ptr_and_size
never learns of it and uses the offset+size as if they were meaningful.
12 matches
Mail list logo