Fwd: Re: [PATCH][4/5] Handle internal_fn in operand_equal_p

[Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries at mentor dot com>]

[ forwarding. for some reason, this email didn't make it to gcc-patches ml archive ]

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [PATCH][4/5] Handle internal_fn in operand_equal_p
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:03:34 +0100
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>

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.