[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2007-03-13 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-13 16:12 --- Created an attachment (id=13201) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13201action=view) patch which I need to retest and fix the last regression --

[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2007-02-14 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30132

[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2007-02-04 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30132

[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2007-01-22 Thread geir at cray dot com
--- Comment #10 from geir at cray dot com 2007-01-22 19:24 --- Here is a Fortran test case: $ cat bug2737.f90 PROGRAM get_tst_inc_complex implicit none external subrrg, checkrr complex :: vrr, trr vrr=cmplx(1.,2.); call subrr ( ) contains

[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2007-01-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 19:30 --- (In reply to comment #10) Here is a Fortran test case: I think that Fortran issue is something unrelated to this bug. In fact that Fortran testcase was fixed for 4.1.2 by PR 27889. --

[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2006-12-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 14:22 --- Also note moving catching it earlier makes this a middle-end (gimplifier) issue rather than an optimization issue. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2006-12-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 14:24 --- After gimplification: D.1853 = *t; if (D.1853 == __complex__ (0.0, 0.0)) { D.1854 = __complex__ (0.0, 0.0); iftmp.0 = D.1854; } else { D.1855 = *t; D.1856 = -D.1855;

[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2006-12-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 19:11 --- We have: if ((fallback fb_lvalue) == 0) { result = tmp2 = tmp = create_tmp_var (TREE_TYPE (expr), iftmp); ret = GS_ALL_DONE; } But fallback is fallback=fb_either so the

[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2006-12-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 19:24 --- The second issue (the invalid gimple), comes from marking a variable as ADDRESSABLE late after the orginal gimplification to that variable had happened: /* Mark the RHS addressable. */

[Bug middle-end/30132] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in find_lattice_value, at tree-complex.c:133

2006-12-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 19:36 --- I now have a fix for both issues (fixing the first problem of ineffient gimplification is enough to fix this bug but might not be enough to fix others). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30132