On 09/26/2011 12:29 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
>> On 09/25/2011 10:57 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Eric Botcazou
>>> wrote:
> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an
> updated t
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 09/25/2011 10:57 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Eric Botcazou
> > wrote:
> >>> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an
> >>> updated testcase which I will sent out individually.
> >>>
> >
> I tried to implement the approach you describe above in attached patch.
Thanks a lot, this indeed fixes the problem!
> Currently testing on x86_64.
Please also install the testcase I posted in the other message in conjunction
with the fix. Thanks in advance.
--
Eric Botcazou
> Ugh, yeah. I suppose PTA assigned a HEAP var as pointed-to object for the
> original pointer, even if the transformed stmt
>
> orig_ptr_1 = &a;
>
> has the points-to information preserved for orig_ptr_1 further propagation
> of &a will make accesses through orig_ptr_1 have different alias
> pro
On 09/25/2011 10:57 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an
>>> updated testcase which I will sent out individually.
>>>
>>> Patch set was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>>>
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an
>> updated testcase which I will sent out individually.
>>
>> Patch set was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>>
>> Ok for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Tom
>>
>> 2011-07-
> How about attached (untested) patch implementing a conservative, but
> runtime-efficient approach?
This doesn't work. My understanding is that you need to recompute far more
than that, in particular the points-to information for _all_ the calls in the
function. I don't know enough of the mac
On 09/24/2011 05:29 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an
>> updated testcase which I will sent out individually.
>>
>> Patch set was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>>
>> Ok for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Tom
>>
>> 2011-07-30 Tom de
> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an
> updated testcase which I will sent out individually.
>
> Patch set was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>
> 2011-07-30 Tom de Vries
>
> PR middle-end/43513
> * Makefil
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an updated
> testcase which I will sent out individually.
>
> Patch set was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>
> 2011-07-30 Tom d
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 07/30/2011 09:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an updated
>> testcase which I will sent out individually.
>>
>> Patch set was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86
Hi Richard,
On 07/30/2011 09:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> This is an updated version of the patch. I have 2 new patches and an updated
> testcase which I will sent out individually.
>
> Patch set was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
You already approved the the 2 new
On 07/30/2011 09:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/30/2011 10:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard G
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/30/2011 10:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard G
On 07/30/2011 10:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 07/30/2011 10:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 05:27 PM, Richard Guenther wro
On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
>> On 07/27/2011 05:27 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
On 07/27/2011 02:12 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 05:27 PM, Richard Guenthe
On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
>> On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
On 07/27/2011 05:27 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/27/2011 05:27 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>>
> On 07/27/2011 02:12 PM, Richard Guenther wro
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 05:27 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/27/2011 02:12 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>>
> On 07/27/2011 01:50 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think it is safe to try to get at the VLA type the way you do.
> > >
> > > I don't understand in what way it's not safe. Do you mean I don't manage
> > > to find
> > > the type alw
On 07/27/2011 05:27 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
>> On 07/27/2011 02:12 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
On 07/27/2011 01:50 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a patch set for bug
Hi,
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > I don't think it is safe to try to get at the VLA type the way you do.
> >
> > I don't understand in what way it's not safe. Do you mean I don't manage to
> > find
> > the type always, or that I find the wrong type, or something else?
>
>
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 02:12 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/27/2011 01:50 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>> Hi Richard,
> >>>
> >>> I have a patch set for bug 43513 - The stack pointer is adjusted twice.
> >>>
On 07/27/2011 02:12 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
>> On 07/27/2011 01:50 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> I have a patch set for bug 43513 - The stack pointer is adjusted twice.
>>>
>>> 01_pr43513.3.patch
>>> 02_pr43513.3.test.patch
>>> 03_
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 01:50 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I have a patch set for bug 43513 - The stack pointer is adjusted twice.
> >
> > 01_pr43513.3.patch
> > 02_pr43513.3.test.patch
> > 03_pr43513.3.mudflap.patch
> >
> > The patch set has
On 07/27/2011 01:50 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a patch set for bug 43513 - The stack pointer is adjusted twice.
>
> 01_pr43513.3.patch
> 02_pr43513.3.test.patch
> 03_pr43513.3.mudflap.patch
>
> The patch set has been bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>
> I will sent o
30 matches
Mail list logo
