In gimple_fold_indirect_ref, we STRIP_NOPS, find the ADDR_EXPR, and fold
everything away.
I can't imagine it ever being correct to drop an address space change between
pointers, so I've modified tree_nop_conversion_p. Anything else seems to
require more checks every places we use STRIP_NOPS.
On February 3, 2016 7:03:54 AM GMT+01:00, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>In gimple_fold_indirect_ref, we STRIP_NOPS, find the ADDR_EXPR, and
>fold
>everything away.
>
>I can't imagine it ever being correct to drop an address space change
>between
>pointers, so I've modified tree_nop_conversion_p. A
On 02/03/2016 06:05 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
I wasn't aware that STRIP_NOPS strips ADDR_SPACE_CONVERT_EXPR.
Isn't this maybe failing to use that (unable to look at the attachment from my
phone).
The test case does fail to use ADDR_SPACE_CONVERT_EXPR.
Perhaps it's because of the intermediate
On February 3, 2016 8:11:01 AM GMT+01:00, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>On 02/03/2016 06:05 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> I wasn't aware that STRIP_NOPS strips ADDR_SPACE_CONVERT_EXPR.
>>
>> Isn't this maybe failing to use that (unable to look at the
>attachment from my phone).
>
>The test case does f
On 02/04/2016 12:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On February 3, 2016 8:11:01 AM GMT+01:00, Richard Henderson
wrote:
On 02/03/2016 06:05 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
I wasn't aware that STRIP_NOPS strips ADDR_SPACE_CONVERT_EXPR.
Isn't this maybe failing to use that (unable to look at the
attachm
On 02/04/2016 07:30 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/04/2016 12:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
As for a patch I'd repeatedly pondered on not stripping int <-> pointer
conversions at all, similar to what STRIP_SIGN_NOPS does. Don't remember
actually trying this or the fallout though.
I'll run
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/04/2016 07:30 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/2016 12:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> As for a patch I'd repeatedly pondered on not stripping int <-> pointer
>>> conversions at all, similar to what STRIP_SIGN_NOPS d
On 02/04/2016 10:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/04/2016 07:30 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/04/2016 12:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
As for a patch I'd repeatedly pondered on not stripping int <-> pointer
conversions at all,
On February 4, 2016 10:04:47 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>On 02/04/2016 10:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Richard Henderson
>wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2016 07:30 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/04/2016 12:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
On 02/05/2016 08:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This version fails to fall through to the next code block when
(1) Both types are pointers,
(2) Both types have the same address space,
which will do the wrong thing when
(3) The pointers have different modes.
Recall that several ports allow
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 08:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> This version fails to fall through to the next code block when
>>>(1) Both types are pointers,
>>>(2) Both types have the same address space,
>>> which will do the wrong thing
> "rth" == Richard Henderson writes:
rth> The user-friendly way to do this would probably be some sort of pragma
rth> that allows user-defined address spaces, and user-defined conversion
rth> between them. But that's certainly not going to happen in the
rth> near-term.
Related is https://gcc
12 matches
Mail list logo
