On 12/10/2021 10:18 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Dec 10, 2021, Jeff Law wrote:
The patch is clearly safe. My question is should we have caught this
earlier in the call chain?
Callers will call try_store_by_multiple_pieces if set_storage_via_setmem
fails. setmem doesn't necessarily need
On Dec 10, 2021, Jeff Law wrote:
> The patch is clearly safe. My question is should we have caught this
> earlier in the call chain?
Callers will call try_store_by_multiple_pieces if set_storage_via_setmem
fails. setmem doesn't necessarily need min and max len to do its job,
so if we were to
On 12/9/2021 3:16 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
The testcase confuses the code that detects min and max len for the
memset, so max_len ends up less than min_len. That shouldn't be
possible, but the testcase requires us to handle this case.
The store-by-mult-pieces algorithm
The testcase confuses the code that detects min and max len for the
memset, so max_len ends up less than min_len. That shouldn't be
possible, but the testcase requires us to handle this case.
The store-by-mult-pieces algorithm actually relies on min and max
lengths, so if we find them to be
