A question for the general group. Is it really the case that it's ok that a testcase clobbers boolean_true_node and sets overflow? (and is this one case of a more general problem?)
If that's not unintended, ok, but it seems confusing (aka source of bugs). Or, which is certainly not unexpected, is this another case of something being in transition and the transition isn't complete? Note that I'm treating integer_nonzerop as a red-herring. It's the clobbering of boolean_true_node that I'm concerned about. pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org writes: > > > ------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-03 18:25 > ------- > (In reply to comment #2) > > I'm not sure the root cause of this bug is fixed in 4.1. It looks to me > > like > > it's still there and is only (currently) hidden. Am I mistaken? > > Apply this patch to gcc-4.1-20051029 and recompile the testcase with -O3. > > I'm seeing an abort. If I set a breakpoint on integer_nonzerop and print > > the > > boolean_true_node tree I see it's marked as "overflow". Oops > > Overflow should mean nothing to the optimizers or expanders. It is only a > language term really that should only matter to the front-end. > integer_nonzerop should not be used that much any more, Yes I know it is but > really it needs to be changed to use nonzero_p instead. > > > -- > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24599 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
