https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04b0a7b1a6d9e0f3782888f1ebf187c26690038b
commit r13-6943-g04b0a7b1a6d9e0f3782888f1ebf187c26690038b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 54784
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54784=edit
another hack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > > where if I understand you correctly, bar () is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> And on
> void bar (void);
> struct X {
> X (int);
> int i;
> int j;
> void baz (int);
> };
>
> X::X(int k)
> {
> i = k;
> bar ();
> j = i !=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > where if I understand you correctly, bar () is not allowed to modify *this
> > (unless I pass it an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And on
void bar (void);
struct X {
X (int);
int i;
int j;
void baz (int);
};
X::X(int k)
{
i = k;
bar ();
j = i != k;
}
void
X::baz(int k)
{
i = k;
bar ();
j = i != k;
}
while I see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does the FE really do that?
I certainly don't see it in the gimple dump:
void X::X (struct X * const this, int k)
{
*this = {CLOBBER};
{
this->i = k;
# USE = anything
# CLB = anything
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > The compiler doesn't know that the allocation function cannot clobber *this.
> > The C++ frontend tries to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> > We can again work around this in libstdc++ by CSEing ->_M_size ourselves.
> > The following helps:
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> So I've missed the VR_ANTI_RANGE handling in get_size_range where we run into
>
> wide_int maxsize = wi::to_wide (max_object_size ());
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> We can again work around this in libstdc++ by CSEing ->_M_size ourselves.
> The following helps:
>
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/valarray
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > Note I think there's still a bug in value_range (irange) here.
> > get_size_range
> > does
> >
> > if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Note I think there's still a bug in value_range (irange) here.
> get_size_range
> does
>
> if (integral)
> {
> value_range vr;
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41015797ad14bc9030a87d102e4ab1ad891345f6
commit r13-5766-g41015797ad14bc9030a87d102e4ab1ad891345f6
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #6)
> IMHO these tests and AFAICT the underlying issue has seen no attention for
> months and should be xfailed. On it...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
23 matches
Mail list logo
