[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 --- Comment #12 from Paulo J. Matos --- Also, I haven't touched tree-tailcall.c on my patches but I can't see why you would need to do it.

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 --- Comment #11 from Paulo J. Matos --- No worries Marc, that's fine. The most important thing is that's fixed. I did post the patch to patches@ but haven't actually pinged. I tend to forget about them myself. Thanks for sorting it out.

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 --- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse --- Oups, I didn't notice you had already worked on this. Please don't hesitate to post (and ping) your patch to gcc-patches next time. Also, I didn't touch tree-tailcall.c, that might still be needed...

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 Paulo J. Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 Paulo J. Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #29251|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 Paulo J. Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #29014|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 --- Comment #6 from Paulo J. Matos 2013-01-22 15:30:48 UTC --- I have some further patches that replace the previously posted ones that I will upload soon. Should these also be sent to gcc-patches or it's unnecessary since they're being po

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 --- Comment #5 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-12-20 17:06:04 UTC --- As per previous comments, I looks at build_one_cst and implemented build_minus_one_cst: tree build_minus_one_cst (tree type) { switch (TREE_CODE (type)) { case I

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 --- Comment #4 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-12-20 16:58:08 UTC --- I created a new patch from your comment to gcc-patches: diff --git a/gcc/tree-tailcall.c b/gcc/tree-tailcall.c index 5b1fd2b..8c7d142 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-tailcall.c +++ b/g

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 --- Comment #3 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-12-20 16:01:23 UTC --- Created attachment 29014 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29014 Use built_int_cst only for integral types, otherwise use fold_build1

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/55761] process_assignment assumes -1 can be created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55761 --- Comment #1 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-12-20 15:53:48 UTC --- This happens for the negate_expr case too in the same switch. I have a patch to fix this that I will upload momentarily.