--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
13:32 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Apr 4, 2005, Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(fold_cond_expr_with_comparison): Preserve lvalue-ness for the
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04
13:41 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Err... Why did you choose to drop the portion of the patch below,
that would have
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
13:50 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Apr 4, 2005, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
long-term
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
15:02 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Apr 4, 2005, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ result. We may still return other expressions that would be
+
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-04-04 16:02
---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
Hi Alex,
My apologies yet again for not being more explicit about all of the
things that were wrong (and or I was unhappy with)
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04 16:39
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about
returning a reference to a temporary
Roger --
Thank you for fixing this PR! Very much appreciated.
If I'm reading correctly, the patch is
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04 00:37
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about
returning a reference to a temporary
roger at eyesopen dot com wrote:
I'd hoped I'd made this clear when I proposed the alternate strategy of
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
05:02 ---
Subject: Bug 19199
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 05:02:10
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog fold-const.c
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-02
17:29 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about returning a
reference to a temporary
On Mar 9, 2005, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PR c++/19199
* fold-const.c
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-04-03 03:20
---
Excuse me for asking, but what is it that makes the latest patch I posted not
reasonable for the 4.0 timeframe?
The performance regression on C, Java, Ada and fortran code, that isn't affected
by this bug.
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-30
02:55 ---
Excuse me for asking, but what is it that makes the latest patch I posted not
reasonable for the 4.0 timeframe?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-30 07:20
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about
returning a reference to a temporary
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-03-25 06:03
---
Splitting non_value into maybe_lvalue_p is a good thing, is totally safe and is
preapproved for both mainline and the 4.0 branch. The remaining change to
fold_ternary/fold_cond_expr_with_comparison are more
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-25 06:29
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about
returning a reference to a temporary
Alex, could you confirm that the above suggestion resolves the PR when used
in combination with your
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
23:23 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about returning a
reference to a temporary
On Mar 7, 2005, Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, I believe that Alex's proposed
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-03-09 01:28
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about
returning a reference to a temporary
On 8 Mar 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
* fold-const.c (non_lvalue): Split tests into...
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
04:11 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about returning a
reference to a temporary
On Mar 8, 2005, Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 Mar 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
*
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-07
03:28 ---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/19199] don't turn cond_expr lvalue into min_expr rvalue
(continued from PR c++/20280)
On Mar 5, 2005, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roger has objected to this change in the
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-07 04:19
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/19199] don't turn cond_expr lvalue into min_expr rvalue
(continued from PR c++/20280)
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 5, 2005, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roger has
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-06 00:14
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/19199] don't turn cond_expr lvalue into min_expr rvalue
(continued from PR c++/20280)
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Here's a patch that fixes PR c++/19199, by avoiding the
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-04
08:13 ---
(Of course, the root cause of this problem is that fold is being called before
gimplification, which Nathan and I have sermonized about previously.)
There's interesting interplay between this PR and PR
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-04
19:08 ---
Subject: [PR c++/19199] don't turn cond_expr lvalue into min_expr rvalue
(continued from PR c++/20280)
On Mar 4, 2005, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, looking at this more
22 matches
Mail list logo
