https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> I think the original asm goto case clearly remains and this is a difficult
> to handle case since the label address only appears as regular input and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
I think the original asm goto case clearly remains and this is a difficult to
handle case since the label address only appears as regular input and the
goto target is statically represented in the CFG.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov ---
Yes, I'm talking only about labels which are potential branch targets, of
course after the jumps have been DCE'd it is not really observable where the
label points to. Unfortunately after four years I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I didnt' want to say you are wrong just had some thoughts that there may be
cases where cloning/copying is ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> To the value in the other BB/function. This works if the jump
> targets are semantically compatible. For function cloning it's
> probably hard to say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
>
> --- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
> ... unless labels are intended to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
>
> --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
... unless labels are intended to act similar to non-static function-scope
variables, with computed address usable only until the containing function
returns? Except when used in static initializers,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The question is whether the transform at hand is valid if the label is
> duplicated
> but all referers still refer to the original one (so if the label is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
15 matches
Mail list logo
