2015-09-01 17:31 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 09/01/2015 11:27 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> I rewrote binary/unary overflow-check logic so, that we avoid double
>> checking-s. I think this address things as you intend, beside the
>> checking for constant value. We would need to check for *_CST
>>
On 09/01/2015 11:27 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
I rewrote binary/unary overflow-check logic so, that we avoid double
checking-s. I think this address things as you intend, beside the
checking for constant value. We would need to check for *_CST
tree-codes. Is there a macro we could use, which is just
2015-09-01 16:47 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 08/31/2015 03:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> 2015-08-31 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
>>>
>>> On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
I will need to verify that this patch doesn't introduce regressions.
The wacky thing here is th
On 08/31/2015 03:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2015-08-31 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
I will need to verify that this patch doesn't introduce regressions.
The wacky thing here is the encapsulation of overflowed-arguments in
maybe_constant_value function b
2015-09-01 13:17 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
> 2015-09-01 10:43 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
>> 2015-09-01 10:15 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
>>> 2015-08-31 22:19 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
2015-08-31 21:43 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
> 2015-08-31 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
>> On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz
2015-09-01 10:43 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
> 2015-09-01 10:15 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
>> 2015-08-31 22:19 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
>>> 2015-08-31 21:43 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
2015-08-31 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> I will need to verify tha
2015-09-01 10:15 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
> 2015-08-31 22:19 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
>> 2015-08-31 21:43 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
>>> 2015-08-31 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
> I will need to verify that this patch doesn't introduce regressions.
>>>
2015-08-31 22:19 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
> 2015-08-31 21:43 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
>> 2015-08-31 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
>>> On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
I will need to verify that this patch doesn't introduce regressions.
The wacky thing here is the encapsulation of
2015-08-31 21:43 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz :
> 2015-08-31 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
>> On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>>
>>> I will need to verify that this patch doesn't introduce regressions.
>>> The wacky thing here is the encapsulation of overflowed-arguments in
>>> maybe_constant_va
2015-08-31 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> I will need to verify that this patch doesn't introduce regressions.
>> The wacky thing here is the encapsulation of overflowed-arguments in
>> maybe_constant_value function by nop-expr.
>
>
> Do we need to
On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
I will need to verify that this patch doesn't introduce regressions.
The wacky thing here is the encapsulation of overflowed-arguments in
maybe_constant_value function by nop-expr.
Do we need to worry about that? If one of the operands is overflowed,
w
2015-08-31 19:52 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 08/29/2015 10:10 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, I don't think we want to call maybe_constant_value in functions
>> like cp_build_binary_op. We are interested in overflow only on
>> constant-values anyway, I don't see that we want to have here any
>>
On 08/29/2015 10:10 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hmm, I don't think we want to call maybe_constant_value in functions
like cp_build_binary_op. We are interested in overflow only on
constant-values anyway, I don't see that we want to have here any
constexpr-logic, nor specific address-manipulation logic.
2015-08-29 6:45 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 08/27/2015 05:21 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> 2015-08-27 4:57 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
>>>
>>> Why does fold_simple fold so many patterns? I thought we wanted
>>> something
>>> that would just fold conversions and negations of constant values.
>>
>>
>>
On 08/27/2015 05:21 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2015-08-27 4:57 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
Why does fold_simple fold so many patterns? I thought we wanted something
that would just fold conversions and negations of constant values.
Yes, initial variant was handling much less patterns. But actually w
On August 27, 2015 6:07:59 PM GMT+02:00, Kai Tietz
wrote:
>2015-08-27 12:34 GMT+02:00 Richard Biener :
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Kai Tietz
>wrote:
>>> 2015-08-27 4:57 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
Why does fold_simple fold so many patterns? I thought we wanted
>something
that w
2015-08-27 12:34 GMT+02:00 Richard Biener :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2015-08-27 4:57 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
>>> Why does fold_simple fold so many patterns? I thought we wanted something
>>> that would just fold conversions and negations of constant values.
>>
>>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2015-08-27 4:57 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
>> Why does fold_simple fold so many patterns? I thought we wanted something
>> that would just fold conversions and negations of constant values.
>
> Yes, initial variant was handling much less pattern
2015-08-27 4:57 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> Why does fold_simple fold so many patterns? I thought we wanted something
> that would just fold conversions and negations of constant values.
Yes, initial variant was handling much less patterns. But actually we
need for functions (eg. like build_vec_
19 matches
Mail list logo
