On 6/17/20 4:37 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 10:04 +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
Not doing the transformation I suggest at all, or not doing it in
cases when the member doe
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 04:37:54PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 10:04 +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > > Not doing the transformation I suggest at all, or not doing it in
> >
On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 10:04 +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > > Not doing the transformation I suggest at all, or not doing it in
> > > cases when the member does match the source?
> >
> > We are cur
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 6:31 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 6/17/20 1:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:35 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/16/20 3:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:11 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
> >>> wrote:
>
> >
On 6/17/20 1:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:35 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/16/20 3:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:11 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 6/14/20 12:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 17:49 -0600, Martin Sebor
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Not doing the transformation I suggest at all, or not doing it in
> > cases when the member does match the source?
>
> We are currently not treating different fields at the same offset as
> "equal" before inlining
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:35 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 6/16/20 3:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:11 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/14/20 12:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 17:49 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 6/13/
On 6/16/20 3:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:11 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 6/14/20 12:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 17:49 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/13/20 3:50 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 6/2/20 6:12 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patch
On 6/16/20 10:13 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 11:10 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
That's fine. Since they are treated as equivalent it shouldn't
matter which of the equivalent alternatives is chosen (there
may be many). It's the particular choice of the smaller member
that makes it
On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 11:10 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> That's fine. Since they are treated as equivalent it shouldn't
> matter which of the equivalent alternatives is chosen (there
> may be many). It's the particular choice of the smaller member
> that makes it a problem: both in the terms o
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:11 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 6/14/20 12:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 17:49 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> On 6/13/20 3:50 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> >>> On 6/2/20 6:12 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The compute_o
On 6/14/20 12:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 17:49 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/13/20 3:50 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 6/2/20 6:12 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
The compute_objsize() function started out as a thin wrapper around
compute_builtin_object_size(), but
On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 17:49 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 6/13/20 3:50 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> > On 6/2/20 6:12 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > The compute_objsize() function started out as a thin wrapper around
> > > compute_builtin_object_size(), but over time developed its
On 6/13/20 3:50 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 6/2/20 6:12 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
The compute_objsize() function started out as a thin wrapper around
compute_builtin_object_size(), but over time developed its own
features to compensate for the other function's limitations (such
On 6/2/20 6:12 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
The compute_objsize() function started out as a thin wrapper around
compute_builtin_object_size(), but over time developed its own
features to compensate for the other function's limitations (such
as its inability to work with ranges). The i
On 6/11/20 2:37 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
The compute_objsize() function started out as a thin wrapper around
compute_builtin_object_size(), but over time developed its own
features to compensate for the other function's limitations (such
as its inability to work with ranges). The inte
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:37, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> > The compute_objsize() function started out as a thin wrapper around
> > compute_builtin_object_size(), but over time developed its own
> > features to compensate for the other function's limitations (such
> > as its inabil
Hi Martin,
> The compute_objsize() function started out as a thin wrapper around
> compute_builtin_object_size(), but over time developed its own
> features to compensate for the other function's limitations (such
> as its inability to work with ranges). The interaction of these
> features and th
On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 18:12 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The compute_objsize() function started out as a thin wrapper around
> compute_builtin_object_size(), but over time developed its own
> features to compensate for the other function's limitations (such
> as its inability to work with ranges).
19 matches
Mail list logo
