Fixed patch is below.
Just out of curiosity - why do you think this patch is not for 4.9?
Thanks,
Igor
gcc/c/Changelog:
2014-04-10 Igor Zamyatin <igor.zamya...@intel.com>
PR middle-end/60469
* c-array-notation.c (fix_builtin_array_notation_fn): Use
create_tmp_var instead build_decl for creating temps.
(build_array_notation_expr): Likewise.
(fix_conditional_array_notations_1): Likewise.
(fix_array_notation_expr): Likewise.
(fix_array_notation_call_expr): Likewise.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2014-04-10 Igor Zamyatin <igor.zamya...@intel.com>
PR middle-end/60469
* c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/pr60469.c: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c b/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c
index 6a5631c..2aa3637 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c
@@ -70,6 +70,7 @@
#include "coretypes.h"
#include "tree.h"
#include "c-tree.h"
+#include "gimple-expr.h"
#include "tree-iterator.h"
#include "opts.h"
#include "c-family/c-common.h"
@@ -282,8 +283,7 @@ fix_builtin_array_notation_fn (tree an_builtin_fn, tree
*new_var)
for (ii = 0; ii < rank; ii++)
{
- an_loop_info[ii].var = build_decl (location, VAR_DECL, NULL_TREE,
- integer_type_node);
+ an_loop_info[ii].var = create_tmp_var (long_integer_type_node, NULL);
an_loop_info[ii].ind_init =
build_modify_expr (location, an_loop_info[ii].var,
TREE_TYPE (an_loop_info[ii].var), NOP_EXPR,
@@ -781,8 +781,8 @@ build_array_notation_expr (location_t location, tree lhs,
tree lhs_origtype,
for (ii = 0; ii < lhs_rank; ii++)
if (lhs_an_info[0][ii].is_vector)
{
- lhs_an_loop_info[ii].var = build_decl (location, VAR_DECL, NULL_TREE,
- integer_type_node);
+ lhs_an_loop_info[ii].var = create_tmp_var (long_integer_type_node,
+ NULL);
lhs_an_loop_info[ii].ind_init = build_modify_expr
(location, lhs_an_loop_info[ii].var,
TREE_TYPE (lhs_an_loop_info[ii].var), NOP_EXPR,
@@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ build_array_notation_expr (location_t location, tree lhs,
tree lhs_origtype,
{
/* When we have a polynomial, we assume that the indices are of type
integer. */
- rhs_an_loop_info[ii].var = build_decl (location, VAR_DECL, NULL_TREE,
- integer_type_node);
+ rhs_an_loop_info[ii].var = create_tmp_var (long_integer_type_node,
+ NULL);
rhs_an_loop_info[ii].ind_init = build_modify_expr
(location, rhs_an_loop_info[ii].var,
TREE_TYPE (rhs_an_loop_info[ii].var), NOP_EXPR,
@@ -970,8 +970,7 @@ fix_conditional_array_notations_1 (tree stmt)
cilkplus_extract_an_triplets (array_list, list_size, rank, &an_info);
for (ii = 0; ii < rank; ii++)
{
- an_loop_info[ii].var = build_decl (location, VAR_DECL, NULL_TREE,
- integer_type_node);
+ an_loop_info[ii].var = create_tmp_var (long_integer_type_node, NULL);
an_loop_info[ii].ind_init =
build_modify_expr (location, an_loop_info[ii].var,
TREE_TYPE (an_loop_info[ii].var), NOP_EXPR,
@@ -1067,8 +1066,7 @@ fix_array_notation_expr (location_t location, enum
tree_code code,
loop_init = push_stmt_list ();
for (ii = 0; ii < rank; ii++)
{
- an_loop_info[ii].var = build_decl (location, VAR_DECL, NULL_TREE,
- integer_type_node);
+ an_loop_info[ii].var = create_tmp_var (long_integer_type_node, NULL);
an_loop_info[ii].ind_init =
build_modify_expr (location, an_loop_info[ii].var,
TREE_TYPE (an_loop_info[ii].var), NOP_EXPR,
@@ -1163,8 +1161,7 @@ fix_array_notation_call_expr (tree arg)
}
for (ii = 0; ii < rank; ii++)
{
- an_loop_info[ii].var = build_decl (location, VAR_DECL, NULL_TREE,
- integer_type_node);
+ an_loop_info[ii].var = create_tmp_var (long_integer_type_node, NULL);
an_loop_info[ii].ind_init =
build_modify_expr (location, an_loop_info[ii].var,
TREE_TYPE (an_loop_info[ii].var), NOP_EXPR, location,
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/pr60469.c
b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/pr60469.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ca0cf7f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/pr60469.c
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* PR middle-end/60469 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-fcilkplus" } */
+
+void foo() {}
+
+#define ALEN 1024
+
+int main(int argc, char* argv[])
+{
+ int b[ALEN];
+ b[:] = 100;
+ _Cilk_spawn foo();
+ return 0;
+
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:29 PM
> To: Zamyatin, Igor
> Cc: GCC Patches (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org); Iyer, Balaji V; Stupachenko,
> Evgeny V
> Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR60469, Cilk+] Fix ICE of using Cilk_spawn and Array
> Notation together
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 05:19:33PM +0000, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
> > @@ -282,8 +283,7 @@ fix_builtin_array_notation_fn (tree an_builtin_fn,
> > tree *new_var)
> >
> > for (ii = 0; ii < rank; ii++)
> > {
> > - an_loop_info[ii].var = build_decl (location, VAR_DECL, NULL_TREE,
> > - integer_type_node);
> > + an_loop_info[ii].var = create_tmp_var(integer_type_node, NULL);
>
> Please fix up formatting (space before left paren), many times in the patch.
>
> Ok with those changes.
>
> Looking at it, I'd question if integer_type_node is the right type for the
> iterators, I'd say signed_size_type_node or something similar shouldn't be
> used instead, otherwise I'm afraid if you have array notations for >= 2GB
> arrays on 64-bit targets it might misbehave.
> But that is definitely something for stage1, not 4.9 right now.
>
> Jakub
