[PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

To keep tree expressions stored by the front end in attribute access for nontrivial VLA bounds from getting corrupted during Gimplification and to avoid breaking the preconditions verified by the LTO streamer that no such trees exist in the IL, the attached patch replaces those bounds with a strin

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On 1/5/21 5:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:53 PM Martin Sebor wrote: On 1/4/21 12:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 1/4/21 12:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:14:15PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: Doing the STRING_CST is certainly less fragile

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On 1/4/21 2:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:10:39PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: >>> I explained what the code handles and when in the pipeline in >>> the discussion of the previous patch: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/559770.html >> Right, but th

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On 1/4/21 4:54 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 1/4/21 2:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> >> On 1/4/21 1:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> On 1/4/21 12:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 1/4/21 12:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:14:15PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches >>>

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On December 19, 2020 1:55:02 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: >To keep tree expressions stored by the front end in attribute >access for nontrivial VLA bounds from getting corrupted during >Gimplification and to avoid breaking the preconditions verified >by the LTO streamer that

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On 12/19/20 12:48 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: On December 19, 2020 1:55:02 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: To keep tree expressions stored by the front end in attribute access for nontrivial VLA bounds from getting corrupted during Gimplification and to avoid br

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:43 PM Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 12/19/20 12:48 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On December 19, 2020 1:55:02 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > >> To keep tree expressions stored by the front end in attribute > >> access for nontrivial

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On 1/4/21 5:59 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:43 PM Martin Sebor wrote: >> On 12/19/20 12:48 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> On December 19, 2020 1:55:02 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches >>> wrote: To keep tree expressions st

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:14:15PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Doing the STRING_CST is certainly less fragile since the SSA names > > created at gimplification time could even be ggc_freed when no longer > > used in the IL. > Obviously we can't use SSA_NAMEs as they're specific to ea

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On 1/4/21 12:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:14:15PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> Doing the STRING_CST is certainly less fragile since the SSA names >>> created at gimplification time could even be ggc_freed when no longer >>> used in the IL. >> Obviously w

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On 1/4/21 12:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 1/4/21 12:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:14:15PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: Doing the STRING_CST is certainly less fragile since the SSA names created at gimplification time could even be ggc_freed when no longer used

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On 1/4/21 1:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 1/4/21 12:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> >> On 1/4/21 12:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:14:15PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches >>> wrote: > Doing the STRING_CST is certainly less fragile since the SSA names > created

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:10:39PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > I explained what the code handles and when in the pipeline in > > the discussion of the previous patch: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/559770.html > Right, but that message talks about GC.  This is not a GC

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On 1/4/21 2:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 1/4/21 1:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 1/4/21 12:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 1/4/21 12:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:14:15PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: Doing the STRING_CST is certainly less fragile since the SSA nam

Re: [PATCH] store VLA bounds in attribute access as strings (PR 97172)

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:53 PM Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 1/4/21 12:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > On 1/4/21 12:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:14:15PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > Doing the STRING_CST is certainly less fragile since the SSA names >