--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 22:47 ---
Subject: Bug 26004
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 10 22:47:08 2006
New Revision: 111947
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111947
Log:
PR c/26004
* gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_rh
--
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
--- Comment #17 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 01:34 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the testcase from comment #16
identified this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=101269
r101269 | jason | 2005-06-23 14:44:21 + (Thu, 23 Jun 2005)
--
htt
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 21:06
---
New reduced testcase:
struct s_3 { short s[3]; } z_3, s_3;
struct s_3 add_struct_3 (struct s_3 s){}
wack_struct_3 (void)
{
int i; register struct s_3 u = z_3;
u = add_struct_3 (u);
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 21:02
---
The reduced testcase in this bug is fixed but the full testcase in the gdb
testsuite.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 12:28
---
*** Bug 26591 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-24 00:26
---
This issue will not be resolved in GCC 4.1.0; retargeted at GCC 4.1.1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 21:48
---
I will look into fixing this bug later today when I get home.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26004
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 21:47 ---
That patch looks wrong. There has to be a better way, maybe just rejecting
return slot optimization instead.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26004
--- Comment #8 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 21:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=10857)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10857&action=view)
infrastructure patch - defective
(In reply to comment #7)
> This should be a relatively straightforward fix.
I
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 03:14
---
This is a design bug. The middle-end should not be calling mark_addressable
hooks in the front ends. The fix may be to factor the front end
mark_addressable functions into a part that just does the appropriate
ma
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Strange - both on mainline and the 4.1 branch, I can reproduce this (albeit
> with
> a more sensible variable name of "u") for i686-pc-linux-gnu native, but not
> for
> a cross to sh-elf.
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:31 ---
> It appears we actually don't have any way to query from the
> frontend-indenpendent code if we can mark something as
> safely.
^ addressable
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26004
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:29 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This is caused by the following code in gimplifier:
> 3297if (use_target)
> 3298 {
> 3299CALL_EXPR_RETURN_SLOT_OPT (*from_p) = 1;
> 3300
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:01 ---
This is caused by the following code in gimplifier:
3297if (use_target)
3298 {
3299CALL_EXPR_RETURN_SLOT_OPT (*from_p) = 1;
3300lang_hooks.mark
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 17:42 ---
Strange - both on mainline and the 4.1 branch, I can reproduce this (albeit
with
a more sensible variable name of "u") for i686-pc-linux-gnu native, but not for
a cross to sh-elf. Yet the failing mark_addressable ca
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 15:17 ---
Confirmed, a regression from at least 4.0.2.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
17 matches
Mail list logo
