This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong assumption in SRA

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:43:03 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong assumption in SRA
References: <200805271145.24784.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <84fc9c000805270307w67344c9fkd206c76fd116d9c4@mail.gmail.com>

> Should it not reject these instead?

That's not necessary for Ada (this works fine in our 4.1 and 4.3 based 
compiler so far) and would disable SRA for the testcase I've attached.
I think that you have to be careful with integral types because of sign
or zero extension, but this doesn't matter for aggregate types as long as 
their fields themselves are correctly represented.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong assumption in SRA
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- [PATCH] Fix wrong assumption in SRA
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong assumption in SRA
  - From: Richard Guenther

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]