--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 12:23 ---
This also breaks because of gimple_regimplify_operands
Breakpoint 3, gimple_regimplify_operands (stmt=0x2af5b100,
gsi_p=0x7fffe3b0) at ../../gcc/gimplify.c:7374
7374 push_gimplify_context (gctx);
(gdb)
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 12:37 ---
Jakub,
disabling the regimplification introduced here
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00500.html
fixes the testcase. Since you invented the regimplify function, could you take
a look, please?
--
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 12:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=16263)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16263action=view)
patch in testing
OK,
I think the problem is that regimplify expect the statement to be already
inserted.
--
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 13:03 ---
Yes, it does (after all, it sometimes needs to insert statements even after
stmt). Your patch is IMHO correct, but incomplete. There are 2 things that
also need doing:
1) I think in while (!gsi_end_p (copy_gsi))
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 13:07
---
PR37432 is also related, where regimplify operands fails to notice that
a non-register lhs requires a temporary.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 22:07 ---
Subject: Bug 37356
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 9 22:06:20 2008
New Revision: 140177
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140177
Log:
PR middle-end/37356
* tree-inline.c (copy_bb):
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 22:11 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-08 23:52
---
The regression appeared between 2008-07-26 and 2008-07-29?
Fallout of tuples merge?
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2008-09-03 17:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=16210)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16210action=view)
Preprocessed code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2008-09-03 17:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=16211)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16211action=view)
Slightly reduced testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-03 21:28 ---
This might have been fixed by:
2008-09-03 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR tree-optimization/37328
* tree-sra.c (sra_build_assignment): Gimplify properly.
(generate_copy_inout): Take
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-04 01:17 ---
Nope, this is an inlining issue. Reduced testcase:
bool f();
int neg_infinity();
bool is_inf(int v) {
return (v == neg_infinity());
};
struct counted_time_rep {
counted_time_rep()
{
is_inf(1) ||
15 matches
Mail list logo
