[Bug c++/28899] [4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-09-01 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-01 18:00 --- fixed. -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/28899] [4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-09-01 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-01 17:59 --- Subject: Bug 28899 Author: jason Date: Fri Sep 1 17:59:41 2006 New Revision: 116637 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116637 Log: PR c++/28899 * gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_r

[Bug c++/28899] [/4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-09-01 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug c++/28899] [/4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-08-31 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-01 06:11 --- Here is an even more reduced testcase: void f(void) { unsigned l, l1; l1 = l = ({unsigned __v; __v;}); } Note the double use is required to ICE, otherwise we are ok. There is no question about it after looking a

[Bug c++/28899] [4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-08-31 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-01 05:52 --- (In reply to comment #4) > No, 4.1.2 20060831 works. Well the ICE can only happen with checking turned on so it could still be a bug in 4.1.2. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Remov

[Bug c++/28899] [4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-08-31 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-01 05:46 --- Janis, Could you run a regression hunt on this bug? Thanks, Andrew -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/28899] [4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-08-31 Thread tbm at cyrius dot com
--- Comment #4 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-08-31 09:55 --- (In reply to comment #3) > I almost think it was caused by the patch which fixed PR 27115. > Martin, can you try a newer gcc 4.1.2 to double check that it is not a > regression there also? No, 4.1.2 20060831 works. -- h

[Bug c++/28899] [4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-08-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-31 03:10 --- I almost think it was caused by the patch which fixed PR 27115. Martin, can you try a newer gcc 4.1.2 to double check that it is not a regression there also? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28899

[Bug c++/28899] [4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-08-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-30 13:00 --- Confirmed, reduced testcase: int check_table (int t) { unsigned length = 0; if ((length =__extension__ ({register unsigned __v; __v;}))) ; } -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What

[Bug c++/28899] [4.2 regression] gimplification failed

2006-08-30 Thread tbm at cyrius dot com
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-08-30 11:27 --- Created an attachment (id=12152) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12152&action=view) test case Testcase from application "lcdf-typetools". -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28899