On 04/25/2014 07:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:23:22PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> On 04/25/2014 03:14 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
Could you therefore please re-categorize this as devirt bug.
>>>
>>> It is an IPA bug. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6096
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:23:22PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > On 04/25/2014 03:14 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> > > > Could you therefore please re-categorize this as devirt bug.
> > >
> > > It is an IPA bug. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
> >
> > Now when I have interest
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:23:22PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On 04/25/2014 03:14 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> > > Could you therefore please re-categorize this as devirt bug.
> >
> > It is an IPA bug. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
>
> Now when I have interest from ubsan di
> On 04/25/2014 03:14 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> > Could you therefore please re-categorize this as devirt bug.
>
> It is an IPA bug. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
Now when I have interest from ubsan direction, I wanted to ask. Would it make
sense to turn
those unreachables
> Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
> virtual method is reachable from a call site. If type information
> indicates that it is not, devirt marks the site as unreachable. I
> think this is wrong, and it breaks some programs. At least, it should
> not do this if the
On 04/25/2014 03:14 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Could you therefore please re-categorize this as devirt bug.
It is an IPA bug. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
Andrew.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>On 25 April 2014 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 25 April 2014 11:22, Andrew Haley wrote:
Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
virtual
On 04/25/2014 01:01 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> I agree, -fstrict-aliasing has nothing to do with this. Sounds simply like
> a genuine bug (please open a bugzilla).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
Andrew.
On 25 April 2014 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 25 April 2014 11:22, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
>>> virtual method is reachable from a call site. If type information
>>>
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 April 2014 11:22, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
>> virtual method is reachable from a call site. If type information
>> indicates that it is not, devirt marks the site as unr
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:22:22AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
> virtual method is reachable from a call site. If type information
> indicates that it is not, devirt marks the site as unreachable. I
> think this is wrong, an
On 25 April 2014 11:22, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
> virtual method is reachable from a call site. If type information
> indicates that it is not, devirt marks the site as unreachable. I
> think this is wrong, and it breaks some program
Summary: Devirtualization uses type information to determine if a
virtual method is reachable from a call site. If type information
indicates that it is not, devirt marks the site as unreachable. I
think this is wrong, and it breaks some programs. At least, it should
not do this if the user spec
13 matches
Mail list logo
