On April 9, 2016 1:29:51 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 01:21:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> To followup myself here - we can also make sure the function doesn't
>become pure/const.
>>
>> Similar issues exist with pure/const functions with ops with
>undefined ov
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 01:21:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> To followup myself here - we can also make sure the function doesn't become
> pure/const.
>
> Similar issues exist with pure/const functions with ops with undefined
> overflow (and code gen taking advantage of that).
> So it's not
On April 9, 2016 1:17:51 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Biener wrote:
>On April 8, 2016 10:00:58 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek
> wrote:
>>On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> Hmm, I think this means GIMPLE_has_side_effects is to be fixed then.
>>
>>> Note that honza had plans t
On April 8, 2016 10:00:58 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Hmm, I think this means GIMPLE_has_side_effects is to be fixed then.
>
>> Note that honza had plans to compute things like 'uses FP' and
>'contains arith with undefined
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Hmm, I think this means GIMPLE_has_side_effects is to be fixed then.
> Note that honza had plans to compute things like 'uses FP' and 'contains
> arith with undefined overflow' and propagate that alongside pure/const-ness.
>
> Can
On April 8, 2016 7:16:48 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>The following testcase is miscompiled by tree-ssa-ifcombine.c, because
>it sees:
> if (_5 != 0)
>goto ;
> else
>goto ;
>
> :
> iftmp.0_12 = foo.part.0 (_11, _5);
> _14 = iftmp.0_12 > 0;
> _15 = (int) _14;
> if (_5 !
