On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:24:53AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> works just fine for me but shows
>
> int (*) () f;
>
> int _4;
>
>
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:15:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > so if there is a decl then use its type signature, otherwise
> > > (indirect calls) use the caller signature (and hope it matches
> > >
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:15:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > so if there is a decl then use its type signature, otherwise
> > (indirect calls) use the caller signature (and hope it matches
> > the callee...). That it later falls back to looking at
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:15:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> so if there is a decl then use its type signature, otherwise
> (indirect calls) use the caller signature (and hope it matches
> the callee...). That it later falls back to looking at
> DECL_ARGUMENTS is odd (probably a FE issue wher
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:01:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Well, see PR59630. The question is if having to handle it everywhere
> > > is worth it.
> >
> > Well, this case happens because we go back to GENERIC which doesn't
> > have this featu
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:01:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Well, see PR59630. The question is if having to handle it everywhere
> > is worth it.
>
> Well, this case happens because we go back to GENERIC which doesn't
> have this feature. So "everywhere" is somewhat a broad stmt.
> It's
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 10:26:44AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:30:12AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> Meanwhile your patch is ok.
> > >
> > >As discussed in the PR, the patch wasn't sufficien
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 10:26:44AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:30:12AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Meanwhile your patch is ok.
> >
> >As discussed in the PR, the patch wasn't sufficient, __cxa_pure_virtual
> >can appear in the vtable and
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:30:12AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Meanwhile your patch is ok.
>
>As discussed in the PR, the patch wasn't sufficient, __cxa_pure_virtual
>can appear in the vtable and it has pretty much the same properties
>as __builtin_unreachable (void retur
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:30:12AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Meanwhile your patch is ok.
As discussed in the PR, the patch wasn't sufficient, __cxa_pure_virtual
can appear in the vtable and it has pretty much the same properties
as __builtin_unreachable (void return value, no arguments, noret
10 matches
Mail list logo
