I agree.
It would be easier to fix it in VHO.
Modifying the code to
int defined_fun()
{
}
int main()
{
int t;
int size = sizeof(t);
switch(size)
{
case 1:
undefined_fun2();
break;
case 4:
defined_fun();
break;
case 8:
undefined_fun3();
Thanks for the input, Murthy
whirl dump of your code at the beginning of CG_Generate_Code is:
I4INTCONST 4 (0x4)
I4STID 0 2,2,size T4,.predef_I4,4 {line: 1/10}
I4I4LDID 0 2,2,size T4,.predef_I4,4
I4STID 0 2,3,_temp__switch_index0 T4,.predef_I4,4 {line: 1/11}
I4I4LDID 0
which part of const_fold functions do you intend to use? Or are you
writing your own? Note also that you will need to observe IEEE
settings for floats
Sun
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Gilmore, Doug doug.gilm...@amd.com wrote:
Other Fortran front ends are capable of folding calls to
I originally sent a message on this, noting the issue in the front end.
I'll forward the message again.
Doug
From: Chandrasekhar Murthy [mailto:mur...@sgi.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:56 AM
To: Gang Yu
Cc: open64-devel
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix the O0-DCE
-Original Message-
From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 10:37 AM
To: Gilmore, Doug
Cc: open64-devel
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Fix to bug 917
which part of const_fold functions do you intend to use? Or are you
writing your own?
I am using the
The BE uses the same const fold in simplifier. I think there is a way
to include simplifier in fortran FE. My question is, are you using
that? Or writing your own? If you are writing your own, I just want to
point out the potential problems in terms of rounding/... IEEE issue
Sun
On Sun, Mar 18,
with Doug's forwarded message, I recall the previous conversation.
If we can fix VHO, that should be fine.
The other approach is to distinguish between -O0 vs -O0 -g where the later
will not turn on any optimization, inline ... whatsoever. -O0 really means
-O0 -P:=on, which will do some simple
