On 01/06/2018 11:58 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 5 January 2018 at 00:20, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 01/03/2018 12:08 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>> On 3 January 2018 at 12:33, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On 2 January 2018 at 17:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 a
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/06/2018 11:58 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> [ Snip ]
>
>>> I think with those changes we're probably in good shape. But please
>>> repost for final approval.
>> I have the updated the attached version with your suggestions.
>> Does it lo
On 01/06/2018 11:58 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
[ Snip ]
>> I think with those changes we're probably in good shape. But please
>> repost for final approval.
> I have the updated the attached version with your suggestions.
> Does it look OK ?
> Bootstrap+test passes on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
On 7 January 2018 at 12:28, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 5 January 2018 at 00:20, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 01/03/2018 12:08 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>> On 3 January 2018 at 12:33, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On 2 January 2018 at 17:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2
On 5 January 2018 at 00:20, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/03/2018 12:08 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 3 January 2018 at 12:33, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On 2 January 2018 at 17:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:39:17PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> --- /
On 01/03/2018 12:08 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 3 January 2018 at 12:33, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On 2 January 2018 at 17:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:39:17PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr
On 3 January 2018 at 12:33, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 2 January 2018 at 17:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:39:17PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr82665.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>
On 2 January 2018 at 17:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:39:17PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr82665.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
>> +
>> +vo
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:39:17PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr82665.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
> +
> +void f1 (char *p, __SIZE_TYPE__ sz)
> +{
> + char *q = __bui
On 20 November 2017 at 16:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:13:49PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The attached patch tries to fix PR82665 by adding value-range for 'n'
>> to [0, PTRDIFF_MAX - 1] in the following case:
>> def = memchr(arg, 0, sz);
>> n = def - arg
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:13:49PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> The attached patch tries to fix PR82665 by adding value-range for 'n'
> to [0, PTRDIFF_MAX - 1] in the following case:
> def = memchr(arg, 0, sz);
> n = def - arg
>
> where def and arg are char *. I suppose it's safe to a
Hi,
The attached patch tries to fix PR82665 by adding value-range for 'n'
to [0, PTRDIFF_MAX - 1] in the following case:
def = memchr(arg, 0, sz);
n = def - arg
where def and arg are char *. I suppose it's safe to assume that if
arg is char *, then
memchr(arg, 0, sz) would return a non NULL pointe
12 matches
Mail list logo
