[Bug middle-end/21433] The COMPONENT_REF case of expand_expr_real_1 is probably wrong

2021-05-11 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21433 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/21433] The COMPONENT_REF case of expand_expr_real_1 is probably wrong

2021-05-11 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21433 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de09c0ddb81e2dc0e35c2e362532e93ca417200c commit r12-728-gde09c0ddb81e2dc0e35c2e362532e93ca417200c Author: Martin Sebor Date: Tue M

[Bug middle-end/21433] The COMPONENT_REF case of expand_expr_real_1 is probably wrong

2021-02-11 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21433 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/21433] The COMPONENT_REF case of expand_expr_real_1 is probably wrong

2021-02-11 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21433 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Created attachment 50171 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50171&action=edit Proposed patch. Patched to remove the CONSTRUCTOR code and replace it with an assert that it doesn't come up. T

[Bug middle-end/21433] The COMPONENT_REF case of expand_expr_real_1 is probably wrong

2021-02-10 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21433 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2012-01-19 00:00:00 |2021-2-10 CC|

[Bug middle-end/21433] The COMPONENT_REF case of expand_expr_real_1 is probably wrong

2005-05-07 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07 15:52 --- (In reply to comment #0) > We have the following coverage for the COMPONENT_REF case. Actually I think at one point this was valid to do but that was before gimple and generic and tree-ssa. I think the code