Since this commit (r242639), I've noticed regressions on arm targets:
- PASS now FAIL [PASS => FAIL]:
gcc.dg/uninit-pred-6_a.c warning (test for warnings, line 36)
gcc.dg/uninit-pred-6_b.c warning (test for warnings, line 42)
gcc.dg/uninit-pred-7_c.c (test for excess errors
On Nov 21 2016, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Since this commit (r242639), I've noticed regressions on arm targets:
>
> - PASS now FAIL [PASS => FAIL]:
>
> gcc.dg/uninit-pred-6_a.c warning (test for warnings, line 36)
> gcc.dg/uninit-pred-6_b.c warning (test for warnings, line 42)
>
Hi,
On 20 November 2016 at 17:36, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 03:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/02/2016 11:16 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jeff.
>>>
>>> As discussed in the PR, here is a patch exploring your idea of ignoring
>>> unguarded uses if we can prove that the guar
On 11/20/2016 09:36 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 11/16/2016 03:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/02/2016 11:16 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi Jeff.
As discussed in the PR, here is a patch exploring your idea of ignoring
unguarded uses if we can prove that the guards for such uses are
invalidated by t
On 11/16/2016 03:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/02/2016 11:16 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi Jeff.
As discussed in the PR, here is a patch exploring your idea of ignoring
unguarded uses if we can prove that the guards for such uses are
invalidated by the uninitialized operand paths being executed.
On 11/02/2016 11:16 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi Jeff.
As discussed in the PR, here is a patch exploring your idea of ignoring
unguarded uses if we can prove that the guards for such uses are
invalidated by the uninitialized operand paths being executed.
This is an updated patch from my suggest
Hi Jeff.
As discussed in the PR, here is a patch exploring your idea of ignoring
unguarded uses if we can prove that the guards for such uses are
invalidated by the uninitialized operand paths being executed.
This is an updated patch from my suggestion in the PR. It bootstraps
with no regre
