On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:37:31PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Hum. But that pessimizes a _lot_ of early folding. Like we'd no
> longer optimize
>
> r = &a.a[4];
> r = r + 1;
> if (r != &a.a[0])
>
> and similar stuff exposed a lot by C++ abstraction. We really only
> want to avoid eli
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:30:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution, -O2
> > ...
> > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memmove-chk.c execution, -O2
> > ...
> > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:30:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution, -O2
> ...
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memmove-chk.c execution, -O2
> ...
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/strncat-chk.c execution, -O2
> ...
> FAIL:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:41:24AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > I am testing the following (old) patch to value number call lhs
> > > according to the ERF_RETURNS_ARG annotation. This allows
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:41:24AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > I am testing the following (old) patch to value number call lhs
> > according to the ERF_RETURNS_ARG annotation. This allows for
> > more expression simplification and also changes
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:41:24AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I am testing the following (old) patch to value number call lhs
> according to the ERF_RETURNS_ARG annotation. This allows for
> more expression simplification and also changes downstream
> users of the argument to use the return
