On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 22 November 2016 at 20:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 21 November 2016 at 15:34, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 17 Novem
On 22 November 2016 at 20:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 21 November 2016 at 15:34, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 November 2016 at 15:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 17 No
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 21 November 2016 at 15:34, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 November 2016 at 15:24, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 17 Novem
On 21 November 2016 at 15:34, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 17 November 2016 at 15:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 November 2016 at 14:21, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 17 No
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 17 November 2016 at 15:24, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 November 2016 at 14:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Richard,
On 17 November 2016 at 15:24, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 17 November 2016 at 14:21, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Richard,
>> >> Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks i
On 11/17/2016 01:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/16/2016 05:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
(I've heard some noise in C++-land about making memcpy(0,0,0) valid, but
that may have just been noise)
We may have read the same discussion. It would make some t
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 17 November 2016 at 14:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Richard,
> >> Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks if stmt
> >> contains call to memmove (and friends) in gimple_
On 17 November 2016 at 14:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>> Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks if stmt
>> contains call to memmove (and friends) in gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p
>> and returns true in that case.
>>
>>
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks if stmt
> contains call to memmove (and friends) in gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p
> and returns true in that case.
>
> Bootstrapped+tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> Cross-test
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 05:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> > >
> > > (I've heard some noise in C++-land about making memcpy(0,0,0) valid, but
> > > that may have just been noise)
> >
> > We may have read the same discussion. It would make some things
> > a little ea
On 11/16/2016 05:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
(I've heard some noise in C++-land about making memcpy(0,0,0) valid, but
that may have just been noise)
We may have read the same discussion. It would make some things
a little easier in C++ (and remove what most people view as yet
another unnecess
On 11/16/2016 05:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/16/2016 02:21 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/16/2016 11:49 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Hi Richard,
Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks if stmt
contains call to memmove (and friends)
On 11/16/2016 02:21 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/16/2016 11:49 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Hi Richard,
Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks if stmt
contains call to memmove (and friends) in gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p
and returns tr
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/16/2016 11:49 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Hi Richard,
Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks if stmt
contains call to memmove (and friends) in gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p
and returns true in that case.
Nice. I think the list s
On 11/16/2016 11:49 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Hi Richard,
Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks if stmt
contains call to memmove (and friends) in gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p
and returns true in that case.
Nice. I think the list should also include mempcpy, stpcpy, and
stp
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:19:37AM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
> @@ -1069,6 +1069,34 @@ gimple_assign_nonzero_warnv_p (gimple *stmt, bool
> *strict_overflow_p)
> }
> }
>
> +/* Return true if STMT is known to contain call to a string-built
Hi Richard,
Following your suggestion in PR78154, the patch checks if stmt
contains call to memmove (and friends) in gimple_stmt_nonzero_warnv_p
and returns true in that case.
Bootstrapped+tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Cross-testing on arm*-*-*, aarch64*-*-* in progress.
Would it be OK to co
18 matches
Mail list logo
