On 10/29/13 00:38, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/28/13 16:05, Marc Glisse wrote:
I checked and it does the wrong thing (I don't have the testcase handy
anymore, but it shouldn't be hard to recreate one), I even wrote a patch
(attached) but it is related to:
htt
On 10/29/13 00:38, Marc Glisse wrote:
Indeed. Do you want to commit it xfailed or put it in bugzilla so we
don't lose it? (it becomes harder if you replace p with p-1 in the
memset arguments).
I'll either add it as xfailed, or I'll add it as-is if I fix the alias
code. It'd primarly be to add
On 10/29/13 09:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/29/13 04:40, Richard Biener wrote:
Of course in the example we have the "global memory" storage class
(incoming function argument) and "malloc memory" which is really
the same storage class. It o
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/29/13 04:40, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course in the example we have the "global memory" storage class
>> (incoming function argument) and "malloc memory" which is really
>> the same storage class. It only becomes a different storag
On 10/29/13 04:40, Richard Biener wrote:
Of course in the example we have the "global memory" storage class
(incoming function argument) and "malloc memory" which is really
the same storage class. It only becomes a different storage class
if you factor in flow analysis (for which the current PT
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/28/13 16:05, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>
>>
>> I checked and it does the wrong thing (I don't have the testcase handy
>> anymore, but it shouldn't be hard to recreate one), I even wrote a patch
>> (attached) but it is related to:
>> http://gcc.gnu
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/13 01:15, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this patch teaches gcc that free kills the memory its argument points
>>> to. The equality test is probably too strict, I guess we can loose
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/28/13 16:05, Marc Glisse wrote:
I checked and it does the wrong thing (I don't have the testcase handy
anymore, but it shouldn't be hard to recreate one), I even wrote a patch
(attached) but it is related to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/
On 10/28/13 16:05, Marc Glisse wrote:
I checked and it does the wrong thing (I don't have the testcase handy
anymore, but it shouldn't be hard to recreate one), I even wrote a patch
(attached) but it is related to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02238.html
so it can't go in. A more
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/26/13 01:15, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch teaches gcc that free kills the memory its argument points
to. The equality test is probably too strict, I guess we can loosen it
later (unless you have suggestions?).
Note that the corresponding code
On 10/26/13 01:15, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch teaches gcc that free kills the memory its argument points
to. The equality test is probably too strict, I guess we can loosen it
later (unless you have suggestions?).
Note that the corresponding code for BUILT_IN_MEMCPY and others seems
s
Hello,
this patch teaches gcc that free kills the memory its argument points to.
The equality test is probably too strict, I guess we can loosen it later
(unless you have suggestions?).
Note that the corresponding code for BUILT_IN_MEMCPY and others seems
suspicious to me, it looks like it i
12 matches
Mail list logo
