https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Christian Prochaska from comment #16)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> >
> > There was a deferencing of myself before:
> > Nova::Utcb = *(Nova::Utcb *)myself->utcb();
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #16 from Christian Prochaska
---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
>
> There was a deferencing of myself before:
> Nova::Utcb = *(Nova::Utcb *)myself->utcb();
I see. The 'Thread::utcb()' function handles the null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> (In reply to Christian Prochaska from comment #13)
> > I found the "Register non-null side effects properly." commit with git
> > bisect while debugging a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Christian Prochaska from comment #13)
> I found the "Register non-null side effects properly." commit with git
> bisect while debugging a page fault in the Genode OS framework built with
> GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
Christian Prochaska changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christian.prochaska@genode-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6bb1db76b3ac127aff7dacf391fc1798a94bb7d
commit r12-7128-gc6bb1db76b3ac127aff7dacf391fc1798a94bb7d
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed35d4205e8c139d27d3d47c528aaa9f82f0ac1b
commit r11-9543-ged35d4205e8c139d27d3d47c528aaa9f82f0ac1b
Author: Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
risk/churn.
> > At least that is what I'M currently trying. would this be OK?
>
> Let's see what you can come up with.
> (which is why I really did like to have the old EVRP since conceptually
> it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
>
> --- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
> I'm contemplating the situation. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
its a bit more tightly intertwined than that unfortunately. I had plans to
replace the current non-null processing with a range_after_stmt side-effect API
which would work in conjunction with dominator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Pedantically, even in the same bb the non-NULLness applies, but only for the
stmt with the non-NULL access (e.g. dereference or strcmp call like in this
testcase) or in stmts before it unless there is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
The issue is that the routine to determine non-nullness is being called to
check for range-on-entry of the current block instead of just the dominators.
The trace shows:
24 range_on_entry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
16 matches
Mail list logo
