On 07/22/2014 07:17 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Alexander Monakov wrote:
I'd like to push this topic forward a bit. I've bootstrapped and regtested a
version of the patch based on the initial proposal to check DECL_WEAK. The
approach with decl_replaceable_p looks not that
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 09:17:12PM +0400, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > I'd like to push this topic forward a bit. I've bootstrapped and regtested
> > a
> > version of the patch based on the initial proposal to check DECL_WEAK. The
> > approach with
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> I'd like to push this topic forward a bit. I've bootstrapped and regtested a
> version of the patch based on the initial proposal to check DECL_WEAK. The
> approach with decl_replaceable_p looks not that easy; I'll expand in a
> followup email.
The
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > /* Variables declared 'const' without an initializer
> > > have zero as the initializer if they may not be
> > > overridden at link or run time. */
> > > if (!DECL_INITIAL (real_decl)
> > > && (DECL_EXTERNAL (decl) || decl_replaceab
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 06:05:19PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > This needs your decl_replaceable change to not be optimized to if (0),
> > > because of the explicit const modifier.
> >
> > The case I care about actually has "dummy" as const (with the intent
> > that it be allocated in a read-on
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:06:04AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > Are the attached files acceptable?
> >
> > The testcase looks OK to me, but it already should be fixed on mainline
> > by patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01315.html that
> > prevents dummy to be marked
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:06:04AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > Are the attached files acceptable?
>
> The testcase looks OK to me, but it already should be fixed on mainline
> by patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01315.html that
> prevents dummy to be marked as constant.
>
> Are the attached files acceptable?
The testcase looks OK to me, but it already should be fixed on mainline
by patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01315.html that
prevents dummy to be marked as constant.
You can however modify the testcase to have
__attribute__ ((weak)) const
> > /* Variables declared 'const' without an initializer
> > have zero as the initializer if they may not be
> > overridden at link or run time. */
> > if (!DECL_INITIAL (real_decl)
> > && (DECL_EXTERNAL (decl) || decl_replaceable_p (decl)))
> > return error_mark_node;
> >
Ping. Do you have any feedback on my tests? What is the next step?
Rich
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 03:40:44PM +0400, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On 05/21/14 21:59, Rich Felker wrote:
>
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 03:40:44PM +0400, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On 05/21/14 21:59, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > >On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:17:53AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 05/21/14 21:59, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:17:53AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >>On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >>>Bug # 61144 is a reg
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/21/14 21:59, Rich Felker wrote:
> >On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:17:53AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >>>Bug # 61144 is a regression in 4.9.0 that breaks building of musl libc
>
On 05/21/14 21:59, Rich Felker wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:17:53AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
Bug # 61144 is a regression in 4.9.0 that breaks building of musl libc
due to aggressive and semantically-incorrect constant folding of weak
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:17:53AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > Bug # 61144 is a regression in 4.9.0 that breaks building of musl libc
> > due to aggressive and semantically-incorrect constant folding of weak
> > aliases. The attached patch
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> Bug # 61144 is a regression in 4.9.0 that breaks building of musl libc
> due to aggressive and semantically-incorrect constant folding of weak
> aliases. The attached patch seems to fix the issue. A weak alias
> should never be a candidate for
16 matches
Mail list logo
