On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:34 PM Andi Kleen via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches writes:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
> > b/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
> > index 2c8c77dc569..548e4bea313 100644
> > --- a/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
> > +++
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 3:57 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 5/27/22 15:33, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches writes:
> >> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
> >> b/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
> >> index 2c8c77dc569..548e4bea313 100644
> >> ---
On 5/27/22 15:33, Andi Kleen wrote:
Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches writes:
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc b/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
index 2c8c77dc569..548e4bea313 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
+++ b/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
@@ -116,6 +116,23 @@
Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches writes:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc b/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
> index 2c8c77dc569..548e4bea313 100644
> --- a/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
> +++ b/gcc/gimple-range-side-effect.cc
> @@ -116,6 +116,23 @@
On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > I suggest 'deduce', 'deduction', 'deducing a range'. What the code is
> > > > actually
> > > > doing is deducing that 'b' in 'a / b' cannot be zero. Function in GCC
> > > > might be
> > > > called like 'deduce_ranges_from_stmt'.
> > >
> > > So
On 20 May 2022 16:39:20 CEST, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:11:32AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> > I suggest 'deduce', 'deduction', 'deducing a range'. What the code is
>> > actually doing is deducing that 'b' in 'a / b' cannot be zero. Function in
>> > GCC might be
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:11:32AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I suggest 'deduce', 'deduction', 'deducing a range'. What the code is
> > actually doing is deducing that 'b' in 'a / b' cannot be zero. Function in
> > GCC might be called like 'deduce_ranges_from_stmt'.
>
> Or "infer",
On May 18, 2022, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I'm open to suggestions for a better term!
How about inference?
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:17 AM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 8:38 AM Alexander Monakov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Still waiting for a suggestion,
On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 8:38 AM Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > > > Still waiting for a suggestion, since "side effect" is the description
> > > > that made sense to me :-)
> > >
> >
> I think side-effect captures it quite well even if it overlaps with a term
> used in language standards.
IMO it's very confusing, see the subject: "Add divide by zero side effect".
The only side effect of dividing by zero is (possibly) raising a trap.
--
Eric Botcazou
> I suggest 'deduce', 'deduction', 'deducing a range'. What the code is
> actually doing is deducing that 'b' in 'a / b' cannot be zero. Function in
> GCC might be called like 'deduce_ranges_from_stmt'.
Or "infer", "inference", "inferring a range".
> Please don't overload 'side effect' if
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 8:38 AM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > > Still waiting for a suggestion, since "side effect" is the description
> > > that made sense to me :-)
> >
> > I think side-effect captures it quite well even if it
On Fri, 20 May 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Still waiting for a suggestion, since "side effect" is the description
> > that made sense to me :-)
>
> I think side-effect captures it quite well even if it overlaps with a term
> used in language standards. Doing c = a << b has
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 4:15 AM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 5/19/22 18:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 09:22:32AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >> On 5/18/22 16:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 04:24:06PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod
On 5/19/22 18:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 09:22:32AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 5/18/22 16:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 04:24:06PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 5/18/22 14:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
"Side effect" already has a
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 09:22:32AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 5/18/22 16:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 04:24:06PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>On 5/18/22 14:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>"Side effect" already has a meaning, very commonly used in language
On 5/18/22 16:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 04:24:06PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 5/18/22 14:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
"Side effect" already has a meaning, very commonly used in language
theory, and even in the C standard itself: a function has a side effect
if
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 04:24:06PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 5/18/22 14:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >"Side effect" already has a meaning, very commonly used in language
> >theory, and even in the C standard itself: a function has a side effect
> >if it does something more than just
On 5/18/22 14:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:39:11PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
I haven't checked this patch in yet. This implements a side effect that
the divisor cannot be 0 after a divide executes. This allows us to fold
the divide away:
"Side
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:39:11PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I haven't checked this patch in yet. This implements a side effect that
> the divisor cannot be 0 after a divide executes. This allows us to fold
> the divide away:
"Side effect" already has a meaning, very
On 5/18/22 02:28, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:40 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
I haven't checked this patch in yet. This implements a side effect that
the divisor cannot be 0 after a divide executes. This allows us to fold
the divide away:
a = b / c;
if (c ==
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:40 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> I haven't checked this patch in yet. This implements a side effect that
> the divisor cannot be 0 after a divide executes. This allows us to fold
> the divide away:
>
> a = b / c;
> if (c == 0)
>dead();
>
> This
I haven't checked this patch in yet. This implements a side effect that
the divisor cannot be 0 after a divide executes. This allows us to fold
the divide away:
a = b / c;
if (c == 0)
dead();
This bootstraps on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions, but I first
wanted to check to see if
24 matches
Mail list logo
