> On Jul 7, 2022, at 4:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 4:20 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>> (Sorry for the late reply, just came back from a short vacation.)
>>
>>> On Jul 4, 2022, at 2:49 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:32 PM Martin Sebor
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 4:20 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> (Sorry for the late reply, just came back from a short vacation.)
>
> > On Jul 4, 2022, at 2:49 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:32 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/1/22 08:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
>
(Sorry for the late reply, just came back from a short vacation.)
> On Jul 4, 2022, at 2:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:32 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> On 7/1/22 08:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Jul 1, 2022, at 8:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:32 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 7/1/22 08:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 1, 2022, at 8:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 12:55:08PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>> If so, comparing to the current implemenation to have all the checking
On 7/1/22 08:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
On Jul 1, 2022, at 8:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 12:55:08PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
If so, comparing to the current implemenation to have all the checking in
middle-end, what’s the
major benefit of moving part of the checking into
> On Jul 1, 2022, at 8:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 12:55:08PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> If so, comparing to the current implemenation to have all the checking in
>> middle-end, what’s the
>> major benefit of moving part of the checking into FE, and leaving the
> On Jul 1, 2022, at 8:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:55 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2022, at 2:49 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 9:30 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2022, at 1:03 PM, Jakub
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 12:55:08PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> If so, comparing to the current implemenation to have all the checking in
> middle-end, what’s the
> major benefit of moving part of the checking into FE, and leaving the other
> part in middle-end?
The point is recording early what
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:55 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 2022, at 2:49 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 9:30 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jun 30, 2022, at 1:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:31:00PM +,
> On Jul 1, 2022, at 2:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 9:30 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2022, at 1:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:31:00PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> No, that’s not true. A FIELD_DELC is only
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 9:30 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 2022, at 1:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:31:00PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>> No, that’s not true. A FIELD_DELC is only shared for cv variants of a
> >>> structure.
> >>
> >> Sorry for my
> On Jun 30, 2022, at 1:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:31:00PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> No, that’s not true. A FIELD_DELC is only shared for cv variants of a
>>> structure.
>>
>> Sorry for my dump questions:
>>
>> 1. What do you mean by “cv variants” of a
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:31:00PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > No, that’s not true. A FIELD_DELC is only shared for cv variants of a
> > structure.
>
> Sorry for my dump questions:
>
> 1. What do you mean by “cv variants” of a structure?
const/volatile qualified variants. So
> 2. For the
> On Jun 30, 2022, at 10:24 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Am 30.06.2022 um 16:08 schrieb Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/28/22 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek
> Am 30.06.2022 um 16:08 schrieb Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> :
>
>
>
>> On Jun 29, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> On 6/28/22 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:29:01PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 6/28/22 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:29:01PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>
On 6/28/22 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:29:01PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:15:58PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
Because the flag just tells
Hi, Jakub and Joseph:
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 12:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:59:22PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 11:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:03:12PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
2. Then
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:29:01PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:15:58PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Because the flag just tells whether some
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:29:01PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:15:58PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>> Because the flag just tells whether some array shouldn't be treated as
> >>> (poor man's)
> >>>
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:15:58PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Because the flag just tells whether some array shouldn't be treated as
>>> (poor man's)
>>> flexible array member. We still need to find out if some FIELD_DECL is to
>>> be
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:15:58PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > Because the flag just tells whether some array shouldn't be treated as
> > (poor man's)
> > flexible array member. We still need to find out if some FIELD_DECL is to
> > be treated like a flexible array member, which is a minority of
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 12:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:59:22PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 11:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:03:12PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
2. Then replace all
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:59:22PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 2022, at 11:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:03:12PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >> 2. Then replace all “array_at_struct_end_p” with using DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY
> >> in GCC, adding
On 6/28/22 01:16, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 4:20 PM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Hi,
Per our discussion in the bug report, I came up with the following patch:
===
PR101836: Add a new option -fstrict-flex-array[=n]
Add the new option and use it in
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 11:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:03:12PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> 2. Then replace all “array_at_struct_end_p” with using DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY in
>> GCC, adding new testing cases
>
> No, IMHO array_at_struct_end_p should stay as is, just test
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:03:12PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> 2. Then replace all “array_at_struct_end_p” with using DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY in
> GCC, adding new testing cases
No, IMHO array_at_struct_end_p should stay as is, just test this extra flag
too.
Jakub
Hi, Richard,
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 3:16 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 4:20 PM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Per our discussion in the bug report, I came up with the following patch:
>>
>> ===
>>
>> PR101836: Add a new option
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 4:20 PM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Per our discussion in the bug report, I came up with the following patch:
>
> ===
>
> PR101836: Add a new option -fstrict-flex-array[=n]
>
> Add the new option and use it in __builtin_object_size.
>
> Treat the
Hi,
Per our discussion in the bug report, I came up with the following patch:
===
PR101836: Add a new option -fstrict-flex-array[=n]
Add the new option and use it in __builtin_object_size.
Treat the trailing array of a structure as a flexible array member in a
stricter way. The value of
30 matches
Mail list logo
