[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2007-06-26 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-26 11:47 --- Subject: Bug 29272 Author: jakub Date: Tue Jun 26 11:47:19 2007 New Revision: 126023 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=126023 Log: PR middle-end/29272 * builtins.c

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-12-08 Thread cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org
--- Comment #16 from cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org 2006-12-08 10:30 --- Subject: Bug 29272 CVSROOT:/cvsroot/classpath Module name:classpath Branch: generics-branch Changes by: Mark Wielaard mark06/12/08 10:30:10 Modified files: .

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-12-08 Thread cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org
--- Comment #17 from cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org 2006-12-08 10:32 --- Subject: Bug 29272 CVSROOT:/cvsroot/classpath Module name:classpath Branch: classpath-0_93-branch Changes by: Mark Wielaard mark06/12/08 10:31:50 Modified files:

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-12-06 Thread cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org
--- Comment #15 from cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org 2006-12-06 11:37 --- Subject: Bug 29272 CVSROOT:/cvsroot/classpath Module name:classpath Changes by: Chris Burdess dog 06/12/06 11:36:42 Modified files: . : ChangeLog

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-10-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 22:04 --- This is fixed now. Or was invalid. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-10-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 09:47 --- Subject: Bug 29272 Author: jakub Date: Tue Oct 10 09:46:59 2006 New Revision: 117599 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117599 Log: PR middle-end/29272 * builtins.c

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-10-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-01 22:35 --- Wrt #8, can you come up with a C++ testcase where using var = x; is invalid, but using memcpy (var, x, sizeof (var)); (where sizeof (var) == sizeof (x)) makes it valid C++ (from aliasing point of view)? --

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-10-01 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29272

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-30 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-09-30 11:46 --- Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code On Sat, 29 Sep 2006, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu wrote: --- Comment #7 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-09-29 22:13 ---

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-30 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-09-30 11:47 --- Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code On Sat, 29 Sep 2006, mrs at apple dot com wrote: --- Comment #8 from mrs at apple dot com 2006-09-29 23:15 --- If it is a VAR_DECL, then

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-30 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-30 11:49 --- The primary advantage of the single entry optimization is actually that at tree level we can find out if something is only addressable because of the memcpy/memset/mempcpy/memmove and not for other reasons. So,

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 09:14 --- Here's an executable testcase which is miscompiled at the tree-level. extern void abort(void); struct Foo { int a; int b; }; struct Node; struct Node { struct Node *next; }; struct Node *pool; void grow

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-29 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 17:30 --- I think we can declare this as invalid code for C and unkown for C++. For C++, inplacement new is supposed to fix the problem with different types as C++ defines aliasing based on the dynamic type but we get a

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-29 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 22:04 --- Is: extern void abort (void); struct S { struct S *s; } s; struct T { struct T *t; } t; static inline void foo (void *s) { struct T *p = s; __builtin_memcpy (p-t, t.t, sizeof (t.t)); } void *

Re: [Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-29 Thread Andrew Pinski
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 22:04 --- Is: extern void abort (void); struct S { struct S *s; } s; struct T { struct T *t; } t; static inline void foo (void *s) { struct T *p = s; __builtin_memcpy (p-t, t.t, sizeof (t.t)); I think the

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-29 Thread pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-09-29 22:13 --- Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code --- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-29 22:04 --- Is: extern void abort (void); struct S { struct S

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-29 Thread mrs at apple dot com
--- Comment #8 from mrs at apple dot com 2006-09-29 23:15 --- If it is a VAR_DECL, then I believe the optimization is always safe Not in C++. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29272

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 17:57 --- I think after we want to look through handled_component_p's of destvar/srcvar (in fold_builtin_memory_op) resp. var (in fold_builtin_memset) and see if inside is a VAR_DECL or not. If it is a VAR_DECL, then I believe

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 18:17 --- Created an attachment (id=12352) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12352action=view) gcc42-pr29272.patch Untested patch to just bail for non-vars. --

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-28 Thread dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 18:32 --- Excerpts from IRC session with jakub discussing this: 13:28 dnovillo 1grow (); 13:28 dnovillo 2node = pool; 13:28 dnovillo 3D.1928 = node-next; 13:28 dnovillo 4pool = D.1928;

[Bug middle-end/29272] [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization causes wrong-code

2006-09-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last