On Sun, 9 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Attached, please find a patch that will fix the bug reported in PR
57563. There are a couple issues that went wrong. First, in the test
case, we have a double multiplied to a double. When -std=c99 flag is
used, they get converted to long
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 10:40 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek; mpola...@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57563
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
You don't say what the actual error was, and neither does the original PR.
But if it was an ICE from an EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR getting to the
gimplifier,
that suggests that c_fully_fold isn't getting called somewhere it should be
- and
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Joseph S. Myers
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:16 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek; mpola...@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix for PR c
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
I looked into it a bit more detail. It was an error on my side. I was
removing the excess precision expr layer instead of fully folding it. I
did that change (i.e. fully fold the expression) and all the errors seem
to go away. Here is the fixed
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:18 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek; mpola...@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57563
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
I
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
This version is better, but if removing an EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR there
caused
problems, why is it OK to remove CONVERT_EXPR and NOP_EXPR like you still
do - won't that also cause type mismatches (at least if the conversions are
to
types
