https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Anyway, if we decided that it is ok to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Anyway, if we decided that it is ok to have just the incoming ab edges, we'd
need to change any code that can DCE or inline calls to update abnormal edges
not just for the case where the last stmt used to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In the setjmp/longjmp case obviously you need some other function that will do
the longjmp, on the other side setjmp as pure makes no sense because setjmp has
to remember pc/sp etc. in some jump buffer, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > > Created attachment 54412 [details]
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 54412 [details]
> > gcc13-pr108656.patch
> >
> > So shall we fix it like this then?
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 54412 [details]
> gcc13-pr108656.patch
>
> So shall we fix it like this then?
But isn't this the wrong "side"? returns_twice means it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54412
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54412=edit
gcc13-pr108656.patch
So shall we fix it like this then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
In general we avoid disallowing attribute combinations that at least in theory
make sense. pure/const are about memory side-effects while returns_twice is
about control flow, so in this regard I don't see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Last reconfirmed|
12 matches
Mail list logo