On Feb 13, 2013 6:55 PM, "Johannes Pfau" <nos...@example.com> wrote: > > Am Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:17:06 +0000 > schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com>: > > > On 13 February 2013 15:20, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > >> Complete test case: > > >> https://gist.github.com/jpf91/4944999 > > >> > > >> ----- > > >> > > >> ../../objdir-4.7/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libphobos/dm-test.reduced/datetime2.d:22: > > >> internal compiler error: in create_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:479 > > >> 0x804509 ----- > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Ahh, that's because of this piece of codegen: > > > > > > SAVE_EXPR <*test.Date.this (&((void) (__ctmp971 = > > > _D4test4Date6__initZ);, __ctmp971), 0)> > > > > > > > > > Gimple doesn't like the dereference in SAVE_EXPR. This should work. > > > > > > tree > > > IRState::makeTemp (tree t) > > > { > > > tree type = TREE_TYPE (t); > > > if (TREE_CODE (type) != ARRAY_TYPE && !TREE_ADDRESSABLE (type)) > > > return save_expr (t); > > > > > > return stabilize_reference (t); > > > } > > > > > > > > > So the generated code is now: > > > > > > *SAVE_EXPR <test.Date.this (&((void) (__ctmp971 = > > > _D4test4Date6__initZ);, __ctmp971), 0)> > > > > > > > > After some more playing about, David's suggestion would be the > > quickest. ;-) > > > > Indeed. But what if the example is slightly adjusted to define a > destructor or postblit instead of the constructor? Does the backend > know about those or would it still try to pass Date in registers? >
Backend doesn't know of those, and yes it would pass it in registers because it will always see structs as a value type rather than a reference (though passing round 'this' should always be done in memory). Regards Iain.
