On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 08/10/2011 08:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > > > * call.c (build_o
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> > 2011-08-10 Richard Guenther
> >
> > * tree.h (can_trust_pointer_alignment): Remove.
> > * builtins.c (can_trust_pointer_alignment): Remove.
> >
> > cp/
> > * call.c (build_over_call): Call memcpy unconditionally.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> 2011-08-10 Richard Guenther
>
> * tree.h (can_trust_pointer_alignment): Remove.
> * builtins.c (can_trust_pointer_alignment): Remove.
>
> cp/
> * call.c (build_over_call): Call memcpy unconditionally.
>
Hi,
This appears to have caused a regression on arm-unknown-ea
OK.
Jason
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/10/2011 08:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > * call.c (build_over_call): Call memcpy unconditionally.
> > >
> > > OK. Have yo
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 08/10/2011 08:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > * call.c (build_over_call): Call memcpy unconditionally.
> >
> > OK. Have you tested the MEM_REF patch?
>
> No, not yet. I'll throw it to test
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 08:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > * call.c (build_over_call): Call memcpy unconditionally.
>
> OK. Have you tested the MEM_REF patch?
No, not yet. I'll throw it to testing now.
Richard.
On 08/10/2011 08:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
* call.c (build_over_call): Call memcpy unconditionally.
OK. Have you tested the MEM_REF patch?
Jason
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> Nothing in the middle-end happens conditional on
> can_trust_pointer_alignment anymore - we can always "trust" pointer
> alignment, that function and its comment is somewhat gross.
> In fact we can now track alignment properly via CCP and thus
> t