On 11/19/19 5:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 02:27:29PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
+ /* The transformation below will inherently introduce a memory load,
+ for which LHS may not be initialized yet if it is not in NOTRAP,
+ so a -Wmaybe-uninitialized
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 02:27:29PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> + /* The transformation below will inherently introduce a memory load,
> >> + for which LHS may not be initialized yet if it is not in NOTRAP,
> >> + so a -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning message could be triggered.
> >> +
On 7/29/19 9:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:26:24AM +, JiangNing OS wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/ChangeLog
>> +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
>> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
>> +2019-07-22 Jiangning Liu
>> +
>> +PR middle-end/91195
>> +* tree-ssa-phiopt.c (cond_store_replacement): Work
On 7/24/19 12:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 7/24/19 11:12 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 7/24/19 10:09 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 7/24/19 9:25 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/23/19 10:20 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 7/22/19 10:26 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
>> This patch is to fix PR91195. Is
On 7/30/19 8:42 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 7/30/19 2:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:35 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:21:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Would you need to LTO stream & merge the bitmaps / maps somehow?
>>>
>>> Yes.
On 7/30/19 2:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:35 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:21:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Would you need to LTO stream & merge the bitmaps / maps somehow?
Yes. And if we do not throw unneeded warnings from the sets
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:35 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:21:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Would you need to LTO stream & merge the bitmaps / maps somehow?
>
> Yes. And if we do not throw unneeded warnings from the sets normally, LTO
> streaming might be a good
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:21:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Would you need to LTO stream & merge the bitmaps / maps somehow?
Yes. And if we do not throw unneeded warnings from the sets normally, LTO
streaming might be a good time to do that, so that we merge in only warnings
that will be
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:03 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:07:36PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > > There are a number of existing instances of setting TREE_NO_WARNING
> > > > to suppress -Wuninitialized, and some are the cause of known problems.
> > > > Bugs 51545,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:07:36PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > There are a number of existing instances of setting TREE_NO_WARNING
> > > to suppress -Wuninitialized, and some are the cause of known problems.
> > > Bugs 51545, 58950, 74762, 74765 or 89697 are examples. They all boil
> > >
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:26:24AM +, JiangNing OS wrote:
> --- a/gcc/ChangeLog
> +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> +2019-07-22 Jiangning Liu
> +
> + PR middle-end/91195
> + * tree-ssa-phiopt.c (cond_store_replacement): Work around
> + -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning.
> +
>
On 7/24/19 12:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> I don't know what Jakub had in mind but the mapping I envision is
> one like hash_map that would make it possible to set
> a bit for each distinct warning for every tree node. It would let
> us set a bit for -Wuninitialized while leaving the bit for
On 7/24/19 11:08 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 2:08 AM
To: Jeff Law ; JiangNing OS
; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR91195: fix -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning for
conditional store optimization
On 7/24/19 11:12
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 2:08 AM
> To: Jeff Law ; JiangNing OS
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR91195: fix -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning for
> conditional store optimization
>
> On 7/24/
On 7/24/19 11:12 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/24/19 10:09 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 7/24/19 9:25 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/23/19 10:20 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 7/22/19 10:26 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
This patch is to fix PR91195. Is it OK for trunk?
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
On 7/24/19 10:09 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 7/24/19 9:25 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 7/23/19 10:20 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 7/22/19 10:26 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
This patch is to fix PR91195. Is it OK for trunk?
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index
On 7/24/19 9:25 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/23/19 10:20 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 7/22/19 10:26 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
This patch is to fix PR91195. Is it OK for trunk?
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 711a31ea597..4db36644160 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@
On 7/22/19 10:26 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
> This patch is to fix PR91195. Is it OK for trunk?
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
> index 711a31ea597..4db36644160 100644
> --- a/gcc/ChangeLog
> +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> +2019-07-22 Jiangning Liu
> +
> + PR
On 7/23/19 10:20 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 7/22/19 10:26 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
>> This patch is to fix PR91195. Is it OK for trunk?
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
>> index 711a31ea597..4db36644160 100644
>> --- a/gcc/ChangeLog
>> +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
>> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
>>
On 7/22/19 10:26 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
This patch is to fix PR91195. Is it OK for trunk?
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 711a31ea597..4db36644160 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2019-07-22 Jiangning Liu
+
+ PR middle-end/91195
+
This patch is to fix PR91195. Is it OK for trunk?
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 711a31ea597..4db36644160 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2019-07-22 Jiangning Liu
+
+ PR middle-end/91195
+ * tree-ssa-phiopt.c
21 matches
Mail list logo
