From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 445383858D1E for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 09:04:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 445383858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 445383858D1E Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1699434256; cv=none; b=vsRFDk1nr7hG3udKpHU1mhu+AnHPV6EWRrtSbkJ2ZvSxZXnfapM300dDjAcGQHadz2ISDSQlSDF5KSuQw9IdYjmXWtxk01Cp6pFtYEx18/2LnARnUCPt9cl4S4J1KFDXq+l1DeXFPX7w6aE3AZ6bs2mCnSngDgFi5NonKuTfKhM= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1699434256; c=relaxed/simple; bh=K+5MF3iJqWj/pdYKunsTBpia2fn61Jge6rwn7Sq0BfU=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=KHn0hwf9fRvQxGNSNqgWdrJhPX5VowsL7bV6o64ZfgeT1ih1gNs+/DEIhcqJglkEv/N/BNl4zybk6YX/v5LI4ibSae+CQYDiahc+i/EchgXmM81OBALQg1bVuMoBU/SgkM2Mj4nzWPXYhXLzRhGytlLtcctb0Zw7Y99MaEiIISA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1699434254; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sTRnnKrAhnB53K/OJKIgI7T4R9FjqFbF2XGq/ihQq7M=; b=jQy+fnvoHuRJqUwUndzBQfMwXl9DGVWlpmxSNLtLN4xlcDZc7Y8Vc+tQgEtMEvGxY1y1J7 9T9KRNxGWi2e62eVwDHqeVVcOLKg4Na3YrMEWirbrmL9+FdQKPD6Xy2o11ROg8b0YGS2Ja SgEr0bRcWY/lZUSeMiCbQqAS2yfCklM= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-230-1qObbVZmMvuYWct3FgBueA-1; Wed, 08 Nov 2023 04:04:11 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 1qObbVZmMvuYWct3FgBueA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57369811E8D; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 09:04:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.22]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6CEB25C2; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 09:04:10 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches Cc: Alexander Monakov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree-ssa-sink: do not sink to in front of setjmp References: <20220114182047.6270-2-amonakov@ispras.ru> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 10:04:09 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20220114182047.6270-2-amonakov@ispras.ru> (Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches's message of "Fri, 14 Jan 2022 21:20:45 +0300") Message-ID: <87o7g48vli.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches: > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/setjmp-7.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/setjmp-7.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000..44b5bcbfa > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/setjmp-7.c > @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fno-guess-branch-probability -w" } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target indirect_jumps } */ > + > +struct __jmp_buf_tag { }; > +typedef struct __jmp_buf_tag jmp_buf[1]; > +struct globals { jmp_buf listingbuf; }; > +extern struct globals *const ptr_to_globals; > +void foo() > +{ > + if ( _setjmp ( ((*ptr_to_globals).listingbuf ))) > + ; > +} Is the implicit declaration of _setjmp important to this test? Could we declare it explicitly instead? Thanks, Florian