On 9/23/19 4:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> Yes, it looks redundant. I never remember which of these functions
> ICE when their argument is not a constant (e.g., tree_int_cst_lt)
> and which ones handle it gracefully (e.g., tree_int_cst_equal) so
> I often check even when it isn't necessary.
On 9/3/19 2:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/28/19 3:12 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/22/19 3:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/20/19 8:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Jeff,
Please let me know if you agree/disagree and what I need to
do to advance this work:
On 8/28/19 3:12 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 8/22/19 3:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 8/20/19 8:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> Jeff,
>>>
>>> Please let me know if you agree/disagree and what I need to
>>> do to advance this work:
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00643.html
>>
On 8/22/19 3:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/20/19 8:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Jeff,
Please let me know if you agree/disagree and what I need to
do to advance this work:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00643.html
For the official record, I agree :-)
Great! :)
Any
On 8/20/19 8:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Please let me know if you agree/disagree and what I need to
> do to advance this work:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00643.html
For the official record, I agree :-)
jeff
Jeff,
Please let me know if you agree/disagree and what I need to
do to advance this work:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00643.html
Thanks
Martin
On 8/14/19 1:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/13/19 4:46 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/13/19 3:43 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/13/19
On 8/13/19 4:46 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/13/19 3:43 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/13/19 2:07 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/9/19 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
PR tree-optimization/90879 - fold zero-equality of strcmp between a
longer string and a smaller array
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
PR
On 8/12/19 7:40 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Martin Sebor wrote:
The solution introduced in C99 is a flexible array. C++
compilers usually support it as well. Those that don't are
likely to support the zero-length array (even Visual C++ does).
If there's a chance that
On 8/13/19 3:43 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 8/13/19 2:07 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 8/9/19 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> PR tree-optimization/90879 - fold zero-equality of strcmp between a
>>> longer string and a smaller array
>>>
>>> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> PR
On 8/13/19 2:07 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/9/19 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
PR tree-optimization/90879 - fold zero-equality of strcmp between a longer
string and a smaller array
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/90879
* c.opt (-Wstring-compare): New option.
On 8/9/19 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> PR tree-optimization/90879 - fold zero-equality of strcmp between a longer
> string and a smaller array
>
> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>
> PR tree-optimization/90879
> * c.opt (-Wstring-compare): New option.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
On 8/12/19 4:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 8/12/19 2:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 8/9/19 4:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 8/9/19 10:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:51:09AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> That said, we should change this code one way or the other.
On 8/12/19 2:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/9/19 4:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/9/19 10:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:51:09AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
That said, we should change this code one way or the other.
There is even less of a guarantee that other compilers
On 8/9/19 10:17 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> GCC 9 optimizes a subset of expression of the form
> (0 == strcmp(a, b)) based on the length and/or size of
> the arguments but it doesn't take advantage of all
> the opportunities there. For example in the following,
> although it folds the first test to
On 8/9/19 4:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 8/9/19 10:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:51:09AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> That said, we should change this code one way or the other.
>>> There is even less of a guarantee that other compilers support
>>> writing past the
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The solution introduced in C99 is a flexible array. C++
> compilers usually support it as well. Those that don't are
> likely to support the zero-length array (even Visual C++ does).
> If there's a chance that some don't support either do you
On 8/9/19 10:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:51:09AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
That said, we should change this code one way or the other.
There is even less of a guarantee that other compilers support
writing past the end of arrays that have non-zero size than
that they
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:51:09AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> That said, we should change this code one way or the other.
> There is even less of a guarantee that other compilers support
> writing past the end of arrays that have non-zero size than
> that they recognize the documented
On 8/9/19 10:22 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:17:12AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
--- a/gcc/gengtype-state.c
+++ b/gcc/gengtype-state.c
@@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ enum state_token_en
STOK_NAME /* hash-consed name or identifier. */
};
+/* Suppress
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:17:12AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> --- a/gcc/gengtype-state.c
> +++ b/gcc/gengtype-state.c
> @@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ enum state_token_en
>STOK_NAME /* hash-consed name or identifier. */
> };
>
> +/* Suppress warning: ISO C forbids zero-size array
GCC 9 optimizes a subset of expression of the form
(0 == strcmp(a, b)) based on the length and/or size of
the arguments but it doesn't take advantage of all
the opportunities there. For example in the following,
although it folds the first test to false it doesn't fold
the second one:
char
21 matches
Mail list logo
