Just saw your patch. I'll review that one then :-)
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:38:32AM -0800, Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho wrote:
> Hi Juan,
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 04:37:23PM +0100, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 15:39 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > I had a
On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 09:38 -0800, Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho wrote:
> Hi Juan,
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 04:37:23PM +0100, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 15:39 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > I had a chat with Caio about this and I'm skeptical. In general, users
Hi Juan,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 04:37:23PM +0100, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 15:39 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > I had a chat with Caio about this and I'm skeptical. In general, users of
> > the CF manipulation code shouldn't be stitching two blocks together where
On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 15:39 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> I had a chat with Caio about this and I'm skeptical. In general, users of
> the CF manipulation code shouldn't be stitching two blocks together where the
> first contains a jump and the second is non-empty. If the caller knows that
>
On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 15:39 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> I had a chat with Caio about this and I'm skeptical. In general, users of
> the CF manipulation code shouldn't be stitching two blocks together where the
> first contains a jump and the second is non-empty. If the caller knows that
>
On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 10:29 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 2/8/19 5:21 AM, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-01-26 at 08:37 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > This makes me a bit nervous. I'll have to look at it in more detail.
> > >
> >
> > Did you have time to take a look at this?
I had a chat with Caio about this and I'm skeptical. In general, users of
the CF manipulation code shouldn't be stitching two blocks together where
the first contains a jump and the second is non-empty. If the caller knows
that this case is ok, then they can check for it and empty out the one
On 2/8/19 5:21 AM, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-01-26 at 08:37 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>> This makes me a bit nervous. I'll have to look at it in more detail.
>>
>
> Did you have time to take a look at this?
Is there a test case that hits this? Was it found by inspection?
On Sat, 2019-01-26 at 08:37 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> This makes me a bit nervous. I'll have to look at it in more detail.
>
Did you have time to take a look at this?
J.A.
> On January 25, 2019 09:37:52 "Juan A. Suarez Romero"
> wrote:
>
> > When stitching two blocks A and B,
This makes me a bit nervous. I'll have to look at it in more detail.
On January 25, 2019 09:37:52 "Juan A. Suarez Romero"
wrote:
When stitching two blocks A and B, where A's last instruction is a jump,
it is not required that B is empty; it can be plainly removed.
This can happen in a
This patch is
Reviewed-by: Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 06:37:33PM +0100, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> When stitching two blocks A and B, where A's last instruction is a jump,
> it is not required that B is empty; it can be plainly removed.
>
> This can happen in a
When stitching two blocks A and B, where A's last instruction is a jump,
it is not required that B is empty; it can be plainly removed.
This can happen in a situation like this:
vec1 1 ssa_1 = load_const (true)
vec1 1 ssa_2 = load_const (false)
block block_1:
[...]
loop {
vec1 ssa_3 = phi
12 matches
Mail list logo
