On 11/23/21 17:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:32:22PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:01:08PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 11/22/21 17:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
So I've got patch 10/10, which handles dynamic (and
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:32:22PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:01:08PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > On 11/22/21 17:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > > So I've got patch 10/10, which handles dynamic (and consequently
> > > negative) offsets. It
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:01:08PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 11/22/21 17:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > So I've got patch 10/10, which handles dynamic (and consequently
> > negative) offsets. It basically computes a "whole size", which then
> > gives the extent to which a negative
On 11/22/21 17:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
So I've got patch 10/10, which handles dynamic (and consequently
negative) offsets. It basically computes a "whole size", which then
gives the extent to which a negative offset is valid, making the
estimates a bit more precise. I didn't do it for
On 11/22/21 16:01, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 03:41:57PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
So I played around a bit with this. Basically:
char buf[8];
__SIZE_TYPE__ test (void)
{
char *p = [0x9004];
return __builtin_object_size (p + 2, 0);
}
when built with -m32
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 03:41:57PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> So I played around a bit with this. Basically:
>
> char buf[8];
>
> __SIZE_TYPE__ test (void)
> {
> char *p = [0x9004];
> return __builtin_object_size (p + 2, 0);
> }
>
> when built with -m32 returns 0x7002 but
On 11/20/21 00:31, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
This doesn't match what the code did and I'm surprised if it works at
all.
TREE_OPERAND (pt_var, 1), while it is an INTEGER_CST or POLY_INT_CST,
has in its type encoded the type for aliasing, so the type is some
pointer
type. Performing size_binop
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:17 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:31:19AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > > Neither of these are equivalent to what it used to do before.
> > > If some target has e.g. pointers wider than size_t, then previously we
> > >
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:31:19AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > Neither of these are equivalent to what it used to do before.
> > If some target has e.g. pointers wider than size_t, then previously we could
> > compute bytes that doesn't fit into size_t and would return NULL which
> >
On 11/19/21 22:36, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:31:29AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
* tree-object-size.h (compute_builtin_object_size): Return tree
instead of HOST_WIDE_INT.
* builtins.c (fold_builtin_object_size): Adjust.
* gimple-fold.c
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:31:29AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> * tree-object-size.h (compute_builtin_object_size): Return tree
> instead of HOST_WIDE_INT.
> * builtins.c (fold_builtin_object_size): Adjust.
> * gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_builtin_strncat): Likewise.
>
Transform tree-object-size to operate on tree objects instead of host
wide integers. This makes it easier to extend to dynamic expressions
for object sizes.
The compute_builtin_object_size interface also now returns a tree
expression instead of HOST_WIDE_INT, so callers have been adjusted to
12 matches
Mail list logo
