On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:33:07PM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> > Supposedly the printfs should have been removed and the #include
>> > isn't needed then either. No need to clutter the test output and log
>> > files.
>> > On the other s
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:33:07PM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> > Supposedly the printfs should have been removed and the #include
> > isn't needed then either. No need to clutter the test output and log files.
> > On the other side, tests should abort (); or __builtin_abort (); on failure,
> >
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:51:05PM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >> And for release branches I'd really prefer tree-ssa-
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:51:05PM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> And for release branches I'd really prefer tree-ssa-strlen.c change.
> >
> > Ok, I started testing the initialize
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> And for release branches I'd really prefer tree-ssa-strlen.c change.
>
> Ok, I started testing the initializer_zerop change on the 4_9 branch,
> will also test the strlen fix and send
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:46:23AM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> >> --- tree.c (revision 217190)
>> >> +++ tree.c (working copy)
>> >> @@ -10330,6 +10330,8 @@ initializer_zerop (const_tree init)
>> >>{
>> >> unsign
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:46:23AM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> >> --- tree.c (revision 217190)
> >> +++ tree.c (working copy)
> >> @@ -10330,6 +10330,8 @@ initializer_zerop (const_tree init)
> >>{
> >> unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT idx;
> >>
> >> +if (TREE_CLOBBER_P (i
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:20:16AM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> Here is the new patch. Bootstrapped and tested on
>>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> T
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:20:16AM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Here is the new patch. Bootstrapped and tested on
>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Teresa
>>
>> 2014-11-13
>>
>> gcc:
>> PR tree-optimiz
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:20:16AM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Here is the new patch. Bootstrapped and tested on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> Teresa
>
> 2014-11-13
>
> gcc:
> PR tree-optimization/63841
> * tree.c (initializer_zerop): A constructo
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> Here is the new patch. Bootstrapped and tested on
>>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
>>
>> Ok for trunk and bra
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Here is the new patch. Bootstrapped and tested on
>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
>
> Ok for trunk and branches.
Err - please fix the changelog entry wording to "A clobbe
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Here is the new patch. Bootstrapped and tested on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
Ok for trunk and branches.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Teresa
>
> 2014-11-13
>
> gcc:
> PR tree-optimization/63841
> * tree.c
Here is the new patch. Bootstrapped and tested on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Teresa
2014-11-13
gcc:
PR tree-optimization/63841
* tree.c (initializer_zerop): A constructor with no elements
does not zero initialize.
gcc/testsuite:
PR tree-o
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> Added testcase. Here is the new patch:
>>>
>>> 2014-11-12
>>>
>>> gcc:
>>> PR tree-optimization/63841
>>>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Added testcase. Here is the new patch:
>>
>> 2014-11-12
>>
>> gcc:
>> PR tree-optimization/63841
>> * tree.c (initializer_zerop): A constructor with no elements
>>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Added testcase. Here is the new patch:
>
> 2014-11-12
>
> gcc:
> PR tree-optimization/63841
> * tree.c (initializer_zerop): A constructor with no elements
> does not zero initialize.
Actually an empty constructor
Added testcase. Here is the new patch:
2014-11-12
gcc:
PR tree-optimization/63841
* tree.c (initializer_zerop): A constructor with no elements
does not zero initialize.
gcc/testsuite:
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr63841.C: New test.
Index: tree.c
==
missing test case?
David
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> This patch fixes an issue where tree-strlen was incorrectly removing a
> store of 0 into a string because it thought a prior CLOBBER (which is
> an empty constructor with no elements) was zero-initializing the
> st
19 matches
Mail list logo
