From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-392352-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29012 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2015 09:06:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28872 invoked by uid 89); 23 Feb 2015 09:06:37 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx2.suse.de
Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:03:59 +0000
Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254])	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E63CABE7;	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:03:34 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:19:00 -0000
From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries@mentor.com>
cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,     Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][4/5] Handle internal_fn in operand_equal_p
In-Reply-To: <54E9CFF3.6070908@mentor.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1502231003270.28824@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
References: <54E5BB06.2080102@mentor.com> <54E5C403.7050606@mentor.com> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1502191343240.28824@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <20150219125122.GF1746@tucnak.redhat.com> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1502191406130.28824@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <54E5FB07.1010307@mentor.com> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1502201253500.28824@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <54E9CFF3.6070908@mentor.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg01355.txt.bz2

On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:

> On 20-02-15 12:54, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > 
> > > On 19-02-15 14:07, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > > I'd call it a bug though, and we do have internal fns in
> > > > > > generic already thus the issue is latent (with ubsan at least).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Which means ok for trunk now.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But the patch should better handle the internal calls right.
> > > > > I.e. return 0 only if only one, not both CALL_EXPR_FNs are NULL,
> > > > > or if both are NULL and CALL_EXPR_IFN is different, or if
> > > > > call_expr_nargs is different.
> > > > 
> > > > The question is whether generic call handling works (esp.
> > > > call_expr_flags
> > > > works correctly - the argument compare should work fine already).
> > > > 
> > > > Tom - care to update the patch?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I agree, the current patch is conservative and we can do betterns,
> -
> .
> > > But I think it's wiser to do that as a stage1 follow-up, and commit this
> > > conservative patch for stage4. Is that acceptable?
> > 
> > Then just defer it for stage1 completely.  If a problem pops up with
> > GCC 5 we can backport the proper patch together with a testcase.
> > 
> 
> Updated patch according to Jakub's comments, retested.
> 
> OK for stage1?

Ok.

Thanks,
Richard.