On 9/3/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/2/07, Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, second, my understanding of restrict, from reading the c99
standard, is that it is perfectly valid for restrict pointers to alias
each other during *loads*.. IE you can
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
Again, I'd love to just ignore this and say we don't care.
Ugh. I think you're right that the standard says that we only get to
assume non-aliasing when the pointed-to memory is modified, so
all-parameters-restrict is
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
The rules that unmodified memory may alias were a deliberate change in the
FDIS relative to the previous public draft; see
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n866.htm:
That explains why I had no memory of this, despite having researched
restrict pretty
In any case, I guess we should consider my patch withdrawn. Although,
if the new meaning of restrict matches standard Fortran semantics,
then our Fortran handling must be wrong, since all my patch did was make
us match our current Fortran semantics.
In Fortran the pointers are not exposed at
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
The rules that unmodified memory may alias were a deliberate change in the
FDIS relative to the previous public draft; see
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n866.htm:
That explains why I had no memory of this, despite having
On 9/3/07, Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/3/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/2/07, Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, second, my understanding of restrict, from reading the c99
standard, is that it is perfectly valid for restrict pointers to
On 9/3/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/3/07, Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/3/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/2/07, Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, second, my understanding of restrict, from reading the
c99
On 9/1/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
OK, great. Here's a draft patch for the trick; this works on the test
case I had, and I'll be testing it now. If it passes testing, and I add
testcases, does this look OK to you?
Thanks for the speedy and
On 9/3/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, second, my understanding of restrict, from reading the c99
standard, is that it is perfectly valid for restrict pointers to alias
each other during *loads*.. IE you can guarantee any restricted
pointer that is stored into can't
That said, second, my understanding of restrict, from reading the c99
standard, is that it is perfectly valid for restrict pointers to alias
each other during *loads*.. IE you can guarantee any restricted
pointer that is stored into can't alias the other restricted pointers.
Those only
On 9/2/07, Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, second, my understanding of restrict, from reading the c99
standard, is that it is perfectly valid for restrict pointers to alias
each other during *loads*.. IE you can guarantee any restricted
pointer that is stored into can't
Daniel Berlin wrote:
Again, I'd love to just ignore this and say we don't care.
Ugh. I think you're right that the standard says that we only get to
assume non-aliasing when the pointed-to memory is modified, so
all-parameters-restrict is actually weaker than -fargument-noalias. How
On 9/1/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33272
is about a situation in which -fargument-noalias works better than
putting restrict on all pointer arguments to a function, even though
that should be logically equivalent. Using
Richard Guenther wrote:
I have a prototype hack which changes checks of flag_argument_noalias !=
0 to also check for the presence of restrict on all pointer arguments.
This fixes the test case, modulo a C front-end bug which Joseph has
volunteered to fix.
AFAIK Danny had been fixing
On 9/1/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
I have a prototype hack which changes checks of flag_argument_noalias !=
0 to also check for the presence of restrict on all pointer arguments.
This fixes the test case, modulo a C front-end bug which Joseph has
Richard Guenther wrote:
I fully concede that my trick isn't a general solution to making full
use of restrict. But, given that I think it'll take about 20-50 lines
of code, and that it will get a lot of the common cases, I think it's
worth it. Do you agree?
Yes, I agree. I just was
Richard Guenther wrote:
OK, great. Here's a draft patch for the trick; this works on the test
case I had, and I'll be testing it now. If it passes testing, and I add
testcases, does this look OK to you?
Thanks for the speedy and accurate review!
+ bool noalias;
it's an int.
Doh,
On 9/1/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
I fully concede that my trick isn't a general solution to making full
use of restrict. But, given that I think it'll take about 20-50 lines
of code, and that it will get a lot of the common cases, I think it's
This bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33272
is about a situation in which -fargument-noalias works better than
putting restrict on all pointer arguments to a function, even though
that should be logically equivalent. Using restrict for all arguments
to a function is probably one
19 matches
Mail list logo
