On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 12:55 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:56:33AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Now, regarding m_init_gsi, I think I'll need to play around, maybe
> > I should have in the end insert after and update behavior rather than
> > insert after, and that
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:56:33AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Now, regarding m_init_gsi, I think I'll need to play around, maybe
> I should have in the end insert after and update behavior rather than
> insert after, and that could be achieved by adding
> m_init_gsi = m_gsi;
>
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:01:08AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > --- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj 2023-11-14 10:52:16.0 +0100
> > +++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc 2023-11-22 14:34:17.327140002 +0100
> > @@ -1687,7 +1687,22 @@ bitint_large_huge::handle_load (gimple *
> >
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 10:43 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> As the following testcase shows, there are some bugs in the
> -fnon-call-exceptions bit-field load lowering. In particular, there
> is a case where we want to emit a load early in the initialization
> (before m_init_gsi) and
Hi!
As the following testcase shows, there are some bugs in the
-fnon-call-exceptions bit-field load lowering. In particular, there
is a case where we want to emit a load early in the initialization
(before m_init_gsi) and because that load might throw exception, need
to split block after the
