From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <> Received: from fx408.security-mail.net (smtpout140.security-mail.net [85.31.212.148]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37A023853830 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:26:48 +0000 (GMT) Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dkim=permerror (bad message/signature format) Received: by fx408.security-mail.net (Postfix) id 5B4F81B7B14F; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:26:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:26:47 +0200 (CEST) From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery System) Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Auto-Submitted: auto-replied MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="1E38E1B7B15F.1628605607/fx408.security-mail.net" Message-Id: <20210810142647.5B4F81B7B14F@fx408.security-mail.net> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, HTML_MESSAGE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:26:58 -0000 This is a MIME-encapsulated message. --1E38E1B7B15F.1628605607/fx408.security-mail.net Content-Description: Notification Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This is the mail system at host fx408.security-mail.net. I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system : host zimbra2.kalray.eu[195.135.97.26] said: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table (in reply to RCPT TO command) --1E38E1B7B15F.1628605607/fx408.security-mail.net Content-Description: Delivery report Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; fx408.security-mail.net X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 1E38E1B7B15F X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Arrival-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:26:47 +0200 (CEST) Final-Recipient: rfc822; marc.poulhies@kalray.eu Original-Recipient: rfc822;marc.poulhies@kalray.eu Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: dns; zimbra2.kalray.eu Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table --1E38E1B7B15F.1628605607/fx408.security-mail.net Content-Description: Undelivered Message Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) by fx408.security-mail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C06591B7B126 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:26:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465B1395C800 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:26:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D900C3858C3A for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:25:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-20-AO0QoZ_hN1q0wcjep0Otnw-1; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:25:54 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 825B71008062; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:25:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.193.120]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 081035D9CA; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:25:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 17AEPdBF1037037 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:25:39 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 17AEPbec1037034; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:25:37 +0200 X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: E-securemail, by Secumail X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.786 tagged_above=-1000 required=7.5 tests=[AB_ENVFROM_LONG_40=0.5, AB_IN_REPLY_TO_EXISTS=-1, AB_LONG_SUBJ_30=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FAKE_REPLY_SURE_A=1, FAKE_REPLY_SURE_B=1, FSL_RCVD_EX_GT_5=1, FSL_RCVD_UT_GT_5=0.01, HEAD_NEWS=-0.5, MISSING_MID=0.14, MM_ENVFROM_BOUNCE=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-1.3, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.363, S_FROM_GREY_MINUS_2=-2] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: fx408.security-mail.net (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gcc.gnu.org Secumail-id: <2002.61128ca5.85f80.0> DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 465B1395C800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1628605604; bh=BydriOKF+YXF2DnQVTAbyZNHPN4oqseYN4DJ2Jnxp0Y=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=eKFTvuXbUHglAAVlQkO/Gfw84qqn2XsFx5BVU1M0CSmIB9hP+NjtnP/4S35e6jxk4 aspSSIoZynRW4uD2lANV3St3m4C4msog871uTccBbw1YgT9VdmGepTQJftULFSmMVB gFeqceiQoOmhVO02sHW0pmC/ZLNW22Zz+GbWg5QQ= X-Original-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D900C3858C3A X-MC-Unique: AO0QoZ_hN1q0wcjep0Otnw-1 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:25:37 +0200 To: Richard Biener Subject: Re: [COMMITTED] PR tree-optimization/101741 - Ensure toupper and tolower follow the expected pattern. Message-ID: <20210810142537.GL2380545@tucnak> References: <49b8d18d-98fe-84de-6a00-34d08fc2cfc7@redhat.com> <448e095e-cce5-a29a-ce51-4053fda5e596@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: gcc-patches Errors-To: gcc-patches-bounces+marc.poulhies=kalray.eu@gcc.gnu.org Sender: Gcc-patches X-ALTERMIMEV2_in: done Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 04:14:15PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > OK, so gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p only checks that the > call is consistent with the fndecl type - iff the declaration is incompatible > with the declaration as specified by builtins.def then that's of course > not detected by that check (this check is to catch cases where a > formerly indirect call through an incompatible type is now known to > be to a builtin). > > IIRC that is a recurring issue and indeed my opinion is that frontends > should not mark function decls as BUILT_IN if the definition/declaration > signature is not compatible. Different FEs use different strictness for what is or is not compatible. And we can't be too strict, because e.g. of FILE * arguments where the FILE type isn't pre-declared for the builtins. On severe mismatches I think the FEs already don't mark it built in (say double vs. int etc.), and e.g. const char * vs. char * differences should be allowed (e.g. consider C++ vs. C strchr). But perhaps we should consider as incompatible somethng that doesn't pass useless_type_conversion_p too... Jakub To declare a filtering error, please use the following link : https://www.security-mail.net/reporter.php?mid=2002.61128ca5.85f80.0&r=marc.poulhies%40kalray.eu&s=gcc-patches-bounces%2Bmarc.poulhies%3Dkalray.eu%40gcc.gnu.org&o=Re%3A+%5BCOMMITTED%5D+PR+tree-optimization%2F101741+-+Ensure+toupper+and+tolower+follow+the+expected+pattern.&verdict=C&c=faf1b8beb7208e3d8bcbc95892f060f0216217d6 --1E38E1B7B15F.1628605607/fx408.security-mail.net--