On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote: > On 27-11-13 07:20, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> On 11/26/13 14:10, Tom de Vries wrote: >>> >>> On 26-11-13 11:12, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jason, >>>>> >>>>> This patch prevents creating out-of-bounds BIT_FIELD_REFs in 3 >>>>> locations. >>>>> >>>>> It fixes a SIGSEGV (triggered by gimple_fold_indirect_ref_1) in >>>>> simplify_bitfield_ref. I've added an assert to detect the problematic >>>>> BIT_FIELD_REF there. >>>>> >>>>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. >>>>> >>>>> OK for trunk? >>>> >>>> >>>> Looks obvious to me - btw, instead of asserting in tree-ssa-forwprop.c >>>> can you adjust the verify_expr BIT_FIELD_REF code so it checks for >>>> this? >>>> >>> >>> Done. >>> >>> And I've move the test-case to c-c++-common. >>> >>> Build and reg-tested on x86_64 (ada inclusive). Now redoing build and >>> test, but with bootstrap build. >>> >>> OK for trunk? >> >> Yes, OK for the trunk. >> > > Committed to trunk. > > Also ok for 4.8 branch? It's a 4.8/4.9 regression.
Ok if testing succeeds there but please leave out the checking bits. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > - Tom > >> jeff >> >
