public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/106654] [C++23] P1774 - Portable assumptions
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:49:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-106654-4-Cwf60Szu96@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-106654-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 53600
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53600&action=edit
gcc13-pr106654.patch
Untested patch, with the more difficult cases optimized away during
gimplification, so only the most simple assertions are transformed into
if (cond); else __builtin_unreachable (); for now, but the FE handling should
be
all there, for C++ both as the standard attribute and [[gnu::assume (cond)]] or
__attribute__((assume (cond))) with the same behavior, for C just the latter
two. Similarly, for C++ constant evaluation, it will diagnose only the simple
cases (mainly because we'd need to undo all changes to ctx->globals done during
evaluation of the assumption). I believe such behavior in both places is
standard conforming, but obviously want to work especially on the former
(middle-end representation of those) soon.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-21 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-16 17:20 [Bug c++/106654] New: " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14 9:52 ` [Bug c++/106654] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14 11:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14 11:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14 11:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-16 9:20 ` pilarlatiesa at gmail dot com
2022-09-16 16:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-17 11:34 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-17 12:09 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-17 12:12 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-17 12:29 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-17 18:32 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-21 17:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-10-06 7:01 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-07 14:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-08 10:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-18 8:40 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-20 0:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-20 19:43 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-19 9:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-28 22:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-106654-4-Cwf60Szu96@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).