Hi,
On Fri, Feb 03 2023, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 3 February 2023 12:35:32 CET, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
>>
>>I think it's OK as-is given this explanation.
>>
>
> s/derefernce/dereference/
>
Thanks for noticing. I am about to commit the following as an obvious
fix.
Martin
A
On 3 February 2023 12:35:32 CET, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
>
>I think it's OK as-is given this explanation.
>
s/derefernce/dereference/
thanks,
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:40 AM Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 03 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 5:20 PM Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> when the compiled program contains type mismatches between callers and
> >> callees when it comes to a parameter,
On Fri, Feb 03 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 5:20 PM Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> when the compiled program contains type mismatches between callers and
>> callees when it comes to a parameter, IPA-CP can try to propagate one
>> constant from callers while IPA-SRA
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 5:20 PM Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> when the compiled program contains type mismatches between callers and
> callees when it comes to a parameter, IPA-CP can try to propagate one
> constant from callers while IPA-SRA may try to split a parameter
> expecting a value of
Hi,
when the compiled program contains type mismatches between callers and
callees when it comes to a parameter, IPA-CP can try to propagate one
constant from callers while IPA-SRA may try to split a parameter
expecting a value of a different size on the same offset. This then
currently leads to
