On 10/25/2021 12:49 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 8:42 PM Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/24/2021 12:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/24/21 6:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ugwe could put the test back, check for some random large
number, and come up with a more satisfactory
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 8:42 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/24/2021 12:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > On 10/24/21 6:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >>> Ugwe could put the test back, check for some random large
> >>> number, and come up with a more satisfactory test later? ;-)
> >> I thoug
On 10/24/2021 12:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/24/21 6:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ugwe could put the test back, check for some random large
number, and come up with a more satisfactory test later? ;-)
I thought our "counting" based tests could only check equality (ie,
expect to see
On 10/25/2021 10:58 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/20/21 6:28 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Sometimes we can solve a candidate path without having to recurse
further back. This can mostly happen in fully resolving mode, because
we can ask the ranger what the range on entry to the path is, but
t
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 6:58 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> On 10/20/21 6:28 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > Sometimes we can solve a candidate path without having to recurse
> > further back. This can mostly happen in fully resolving mode, because
> > we can ask the ranger what the range on entry to
On 10/20/21 6:28 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Sometimes we can solve a candidate path without having to recurse
further back. This can mostly happen in fully resolving mode, because
we can ask the ranger what the range on entry to the path is, but
there's no reason this can't always apply. This on
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 8:25 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> On 10/24/21 6:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> >> Ugwe could put the test back, check for some random large
> >> number, and come up with a more satisfactory test later? ;-)
> > I thought our "counting" based tests could only check equali
On 10/24/21 6:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ugwe could put the test back, check for some random large
number, and come up with a more satisfactory test later? ;-)
I thought our "counting" based tests could only check equality (ie,
expect to see this string precisely N times). Though if we cou
On October 24, 2021 6:57:05 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>On 10/21/2021 9:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Phew, I think we're finally converging on a useful set of
>> threading tests :).
>> >
>> > OK for trunk?
>> Mostly, I just worry abou
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:57:05 -0600
Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I thought our "counting" based tests could only check equality (ie,
> expect to see this string precisely N times). Though if we could check
> that # threads realized was > some low water mark, that'd probably be
> better th
On 10/21/2021 9:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> Phew, I think we're finally converging on a useful set of
threading tests :).
>
> OK for trunk?
Mostly, I just worry about losing the key test for the FSM
optimization.
With the provided test, the forward threader
On 10/22/21 5:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/22/21 9:18 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:27 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/22/21 5:22 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:51 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
(By the way, I don't see range info in the access pass
On 10/22/21 9:18 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:27 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/22/21 5:22 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:51 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
I'd like to see gimple-ssa-array-bounds invoked from the access
pass too (instead of from VRP), and
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:27 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 10/22/21 5:22 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:51 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to see gimple-ssa-array-bounds invoked from the access
> >> pass too (instead of from VRP), and eventually -Wrestrict as wel
On 10/22/21 5:22 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:51 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
I'd like to see gimple-ssa-array-bounds invoked from the access
pass too (instead of from VRP), and eventually -Wrestrict as well.
You can do that right now. The pass has been converted to the new
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:51 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> I'd like to see gimple-ssa-array-bounds invoked from the access
> pass too (instead of from VRP), and eventually -Wrestrict as well.
You can do that right now. The pass has been converted to the new API
and it would just require calling it w
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 05:34 Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 10/21/2021 4:15 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:19 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> >> So we want to keep some form of ssa-dom-thread-7. That' s the canonical
> >> testcase for the case for the FSM optimization.
> >>
> >> What we
On 10/21/2021 4:15 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:19 PM Jeff Law wrote:
So we want to keep some form of ssa-dom-thread-7. That' s the canonical
testcase for the case for the FSM optimization.
What we need to verify is that we thread jumps across the backedge of
the lo
On 10/21/2021 1:17 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:01 PM Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/20/2021 9:15 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:35 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
I appreciate the heads up. I'm happy that the threader has
improved. I'm obviously not please
On 10/21/21 1:17 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:01 PM Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/20/2021 9:15 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:35 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
I appreciate the heads up. I'm happy that the threader has
improved. I'm obviously not pleased th
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:19 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> So we want to keep some form of ssa-dom-thread-7. That' s the canonical
> testcase for the case for the FSM optimization.
>
> What we need to verify is that we thread jumps across the backedge of
> the loop through the switch statement to a parti
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:02 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/20/2021 9:15 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:35 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> >> I appreciate the heads up. I'm happy that the threader has
> >> improved. I'm obviously not pleased that it has
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:01 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/20/2021 9:15 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:35 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> >> I appreciate the heads up. I'm happy that the threader has
> >> improved. I'm obviously not pleased that it has led to regressio
On 10/20/2021 4:28 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Sometimes we can solve a candidate path without having to recurse
further back. This can mostly happen in fully resolving mode, because
we can ask the ranger what the range on entry to the path is, but
there's no reason this can't always apply. Th
On 10/20/2021 9:15 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:35 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
I appreciate the heads up. I'm happy that the threader has
improved. I'm obviously not pleased that it has led to regressions
in warnings but I understand that in some cases they might be due
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:35 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> I appreciate the heads up. I'm happy that the threader has
> improved. I'm obviously not pleased that it has led to regressions
> in warnings but I understand that in some cases they might be due
> to limitations in the warning code. I thin
On 10/20/21 4:28 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
Sometimes we can solve a candidate path without having to recurse
further back. This can mostly happen in fully resolving mode, because
we can ask the ranger what the range on entry to the path is, but
there's no reason this can't always
27 matches
Mail list logo
