From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124705 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2020 19:36:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 124695 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2020 19:36:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*f:sk:ed82e94, H*i:sk:ed82e94, H*MI:sk:ed82e94, HX-Languages-Length:2504 X-HELO: us-smtp-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) (207.211.31.120) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 19:36:43 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1581622601; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dyMNsvFyxT822bavGX2qFpfizURixJbgmc0onp+1X4o=; b=dKhxtTK/0EAujesvDl4L2ZaumJq/0PWqxITGdtxo8T+3+++lVigtAOrPawXANgyCSqi7ry gCHZbVZ/HqnnFiX76a8SDhvMMwkqevWouEBupm3DytVX3gHdnIdicGVnDzO4eNptBhbO0K 9CUZDSPwlFsUh2GhXozOMfcSCxTcjQY= 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-29--Kh3UYjHN8CD9111MQ7tEA-1; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:36:35 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FDD51800D6B; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 19:36:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-116-60.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-116-60.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.60]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08AFB1001DEF; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 19:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Patch ping From: Jeff Law Reply-To: law@redhat.com To: Martin Sebor , Jakub Jelinek Cc: Jason Merrill , Richard Earnshaw , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Kyrylo Tkachov , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 19:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <20200210092415.GJ17695@tucnak> <241d00a5cabb62b38c6c1f83917510527a097353.camel@redhat.com> <20200213095419.GH17695@tucnak> User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.3 (3.34.3-1.fc31) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00808.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 10:42 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 2/13/20 2:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:39:05PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 10:24 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > I'd like to ping a couple of patches: > > > > > > > > PR target/91913 - arm movsi + cmpsi -> movsi_compare0 peephole2 ICE fix > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00010.html > > > Letting the ARM guys deal with this. > > > > Yes, that is resolved now (Richard E. committed his patch and I've > > committed the testcase). > > > > > > PR preprocessor/92319 - partially implement P1042R1: __VA_OPT__ wording clarifications > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg02104.html > > > Jason for this one. > > > > Of course; I just chose to send a ping for all my pending patches and > > add to To: all relevant maintainers. > > > > > > PR target/93069 - avx512* rejects-valid fix (rejected by assembler) > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01606.html > > > This is in my queue :-) > > > > Ok. > > > > > > PR tree-optimization/92868 - compute_objsize/gimple_call_alloc_size > > > > /maybe_warn_overflow fixes > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01164.html > > > Martin's patch should have addressed all the issues and should include > > > your tests (tweaked, but supposed to be equivalent). > > > > No, this is something different, this isn't what has been covered by the > > testcases, but something found by code inspection, mainly inconsistencies > > in the APIs, e.g. the ranges represented as sizetype most of the time, > > but with one exception where it could be some other type (wider or > > narrower), or sometimes the range being incorrect (if there is possible > > overflow and we punt, we didn't change the ranges effectively to VARYING, > > but just capped the maximum), or INTEGER_CSTs compared by pointer equality > > rather than operand_equal_p. > > As I said repeatedly in my comments on the patch, I'm not in favor > of these changes. I don't think they hurt anything but they also > don't fix anything that I can see. There's is no bug the change > fixes (PR 92868 is closed as resolved) or a test case included in > the patch that verifies the improvement. The changes are also not > in the direction I'd like to see this code evolve. Jakub, let's defer any cleanups unless there's a reported bug. We can come back to this stuff for gcc-11. jeff > > Martin >