On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 11:47:45PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > > --- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.c > > +++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.c > > @@ -516,12 +516,12 @@ sort_by_bitpos (const void *x, const void *y) > > store_immediate_info *const *tmp = (store_immediate_info * const *) x; > > store_immediate_info *const *tmp2 = (store_immediate_info * const *) y; > > > > - if ((*tmp)->bitpos <= (*tmp2)->bitpos) > > + if ((*tmp)->bitpos < (*tmp2)->bitpos) > > return -1; > > else if ((*tmp)->bitpos > (*tmp2)->bitpos) > > return 1; > > - > > - gcc_unreachable (); > > + else > > + return 0; > > } > > Does any sort using this comparison function require the sort to be > stable? > > It looks like the <= was simply a typo and should have been <, but > the gcc_unreachable was as intended? (With <= it is trivially > unreachable there).
I think it's best if the original author can chime in - adding Kyrill. (to be clear, equal bitpos is possible, this issue causes qsort checker errors) Alexander
