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 0336E3858D37 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 21:19:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0336E3858D37 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1665436771; h=from:from:reply-to: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=NWTB6KOOCrbTF+fAiJPyefU2J7AGafwlCOZhdS7LPEk=; b=HZVlbN+AEX3AVpDZ94wsE5M965YW/tt66hO944gpcxCMupTYowGfYPTDZXdu6ubJOazzsP x77E5Gh8SmhYDbBSdhxW/OmHlerTZOJkiBTsG3T84fv1/leWokVwlvuRtAp5pBZHSB8Nj8 FloWbFu2amri8Nu/eatqfI+orDGVCPU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-442-Y89X-jjqOlmGJjToMoETTg-1; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 17:19:30 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Y89X-jjqOlmGJjToMoETTg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9A143804516; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 21:19:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.55]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E819D48D; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 21:19:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 29ALJQFJ3690125 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:19:26 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 29ALJP9d3690119; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:19:25 +0200 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:19:24 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Jason Merrill Cc: Richard Biener , Jan Hubicka , Aldy Hernandez , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] middle-end IFN_ASSUME support [PR106654] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP 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: On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 05:09:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 10/10/22 04:54, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > My earlier patches gimplify the simplest non-side-effects assumptions > > into if (cond) ; else __builtin_unreachable (); and throw the rest > > on the floor. > > The following patch attempts to do something with the rest too. > > For -O0, it actually throws even the simplest assumptions on the floor, > > we don't expect optimizations and the assumptions are there to allow > > optimizations. > > I'd think we should trap on failed assume at -O0 (i.e. with > -funreachable-traps). For the simple conditions? Perhaps. But for the side-effects cases that doesn't seem to be easily possible. Jakub