https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
Explicit casts would be no problem as they go through the proper machinery. The
IL for that case has an explicit cast in it.
_1 = (int) x_2(D);
foo (_1);
its when that cast is not present,and we try t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> Alternatively, if IPA could figure out when things need promoting.. GCC
> must already do it, although I suppose thats in the front ends :-P
Well, in this cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't know the IPA code enough to know whether different operand_type vs.
param_type (in the !types_compatible_p sense) means just user bug (in that case
returning VARYING is perfectly fine), or if it can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Well, in this case the user explicitly told compiler not to do that by not
> using a prototype and syntax which doesn't provide one from the definition.
> It i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
>
> I think
> Value_Range vr (operand_type);
> if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (operation) == tcc_unary)
> ipa_vr_operation_and_type_effects (vr,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:634cf26c94de620e66aa124b8ec4d6c2be4b74b2
commit r14-5973-g634cf26c94de620e66aa124b8ec4d6c2be4b74b2
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Macleod ---
Created attachment 56735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56735&action=edit
patch
(In reply to Sam James from comment #12)
> Is the plan to backport to 11/12/13 or to leave it?
hmm. I
12 matches
Mail list logo
