http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46302
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-29
08:45:43 UTC ---
This still needs at least the following patch in the series
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01215.html) in order to
be considered fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46984
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-03
13:06:58 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 3 13:06:54 2011
New Revision: 168420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168420
Log:
2011-01-03 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46984
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-03
15:43:25 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 3 15:43:23 2011
New Revision: 168431
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168431
Log:
2011-01-03 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-03
17:40:57 UTC ---
The aforementioned patch did not do type comparisons correctly and so
only hid the problem. I have already committed a subsequent patch
that addresses this (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
||2011.01.04 09:57:00
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47162
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-04
17:39:45 UTC ---
I'd also prefer a general solution and would not actually mind very
much if we regressed in cases like this. Nevertheless, if we have a
consensus that we should avoid regressing in 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47162
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-04
18:49:33 UTC ---
Proposed fix posted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00161.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47162
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45505
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-06
16:41:34 UTC ---
I've played around with this a bit more and came to the conclusion
that we could refine SRA heuristics some more to not scalarize this if
we added two more attributes to struct access
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-07
16:57:45 UTC ---
Please disregard the previous comment, I thought that was the case
because of a typo.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-10
20:34:14 UTC ---
The problem seems to be a different one. During IPA decision making
we decide to clone a function and the call graph node of the original
one is then removed as unreachable an unnece
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-12
13:50:11 UTC ---
You're right, however in fact all redirections and updates should be
taking place already. Either in inline_transform() for calls that are
in the function from the beginning of inlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-13
11:00:52 UTC ---
Based on Honza's comment #17 I proposed a different patch, making sure
we update the statement as expected, like I described in comment #18
and I have already posted it to the mailing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-14
11:59:10 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 14 11:59:07 2011
New Revision: 168778
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168778
Log:
2011-01-14 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47283
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-14
12:03:51 UTC ---
OK, I can reproduce this and will have a look. The first interesting
observation is that -g is necessary to trigger the error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45934
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-14
23:01:02 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 14 23:00:59 2011
New Revision: 168825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168825
Log:
2011-01-14 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46302
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-14
23:01:02 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 14 23:00:59 2011
New Revision: 168825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168825
Log:
2011-01-14 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47316
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-17
12:20:09 UTC ---
Actually, thanks for filing the bug. Devirtualization and other
optimizations (such as struct-reorg) based on type escape analysis are
a debated issue and it is nice to know users hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45934
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46302
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47283
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-17
18:12:53 UTC ---
THe ICE happens because refs_may_alias_p_1 gets an ao_ref initialized
from a MEM_REF of an ADDR_EXPR of a component_ref.
get_ref_base_and_extent then removes the MEM_REF but the base i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47355
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-19
12:48:57 UTC ---
>From what I have seen, it's pass_cleanup_eh removing an SSA
(names$_storage_94) name that is still being referenced in the IL (as
a parameter to zfree).
||2011.01.21 10:30:47
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-21
10:30:47 UTC ---
Something goes wrong
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47382
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-25
16:47:50 UTC ---
Patch posted to mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01753.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47382
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-25
17:08:51 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jan 25 17:08:47 2011
New Revision: 169245
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169245
Log:
2011-01-25 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47462
Summary: g++.dg/opt/devirt1.C no longer devirtualized
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assig
||2011.01.25 17:37:18
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47382
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-26
18:28:17 UTC ---
OK, let me have a look at it then...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47228
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-26
20:28:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 23137
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23137
untested patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47228
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-27
13:41:54 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 27 13:41:51 2011
New Revision: 169331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169331
Log:
2011-01-27 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47228
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-08
14:15:53 UTC ---
I have posted a proposed fix to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00538.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45505
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-09
11:48:11 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Feb 9 11:48:09 2011
New Revision: 169964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169964
Log:
2011-02-09 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45505
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #40 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-09
14:12:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> That could well be https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629638
> Can you check with a changeset newer than
> http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #42 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-10
17:35:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
>
> Segfaults or aborts ?
Segfaults:
===
=== If you get failures below, please file a bug describing the error
=== and your environment (compiler and link
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47714
Summary: verify_ssa fails with error: invalid argument to
gimple call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47714
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-13
00:54:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 23324
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23324
Testcase minimized with multidelta
Testcase minimized with multidelta, also fails at any optimizatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47714
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-13
00:59:04 UTC ---
Backtrace always leads to SSA verification:
(gdb) bt
#0 verify_gimple_call (stmt=0x76970aa0) at
/home/mjambor/gcc/trunk/src/gcc/tree-cfg.c:3137
#1 0x0095bcc7 in verify_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #46 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-13
12:41:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> Can you try mozilla-central revision 19f13dea4d4a?
With that revision the elfhack problems are gone. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #47 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-16
16:30:31 UTC ---
With the elfhack issues gone, the build now fails with:
--
/home/mjambor/gcc/icln/inst/bin/g++ -o js -fno-rtti -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #49 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-17
13:15:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> Updated mozilla patch fixing the undefined symbols Martin reported.
> Sorry, had it in tree for a while, but didn't noticed PR is out of date.
Thanks, th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #51 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-18
12:30:08 UTC ---
I tried again on a machine with more RAM and LTO build succeeded for me as
well. Thanks a lot.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
Summary: PRE fails to move a load before a loop with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2011-03-01
13:11:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23499
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23499
Testcase
The testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47943
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47924
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2011.03.02 15:16:29
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2011-03-02
15:16:29 UTC ---
Mine. It's not
||2013-05-15
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I can
||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
||atches/2013-05/msg00846.htm
||l
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I
,
||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
We do not have a reference recorded from bar.isra.0 to func and then
abort when we try to remove it. It's most probably a failure of
cgraph_function_versioning during IPA-SRA because -fno-ip
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57297
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
So far I have not attempted to reproduce this myself and so do not
quite follow all the previous comments but...
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
>
> build_ref_for_offset ends up creating a MEM_R
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Actually, the interactions are a bit more convoluted, what happens is
the following:
1. Early passes are run on function baz, references are computed for
that function.
2. Early passes are run on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57276
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57289
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
The problem is that the controlled_uses in descriptors of parameters
of function prespooles is streamed incorrectly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57289
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Right, even though IPA-CP was intended to ignore bit-fields, this
testcase shows there are quite good reasons to do so, but apparently I
somehow lost or forgot to add the code to actually check for this.
For
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57289
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57347
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57347
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu May 23 13:20:41 2013
New Revision: 199252
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-05-22 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/57347
* tree.h (contain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57347
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2013-06-06
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Confirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57539
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57539
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 30286
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30286&action=edit
Proposed fix
I'm currently bootstrapping and testing this patch to fix the issue. I'll give
one more thought to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57539
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 30335
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30335&action=edit
Testcase
We redirect calls to non-funct
||2013-06-21
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Mine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57539
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jun 24 12:51:43 2013
New Revision: 200369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=200369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-06-24 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimization/57358
* ipa-prop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #27 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 30355
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30355&action=edit
Proposed patch
I'd suggest this (yet untested) patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57670
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #29 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #28)
> Patch solved the problem for chromium ;) I will test libreoffice tomorrow.
Great, I have submitted the patch to the mailing list then:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57670
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #30 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jun 27 13:49:28 2013
New Revision: 200468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=200468&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-06-27 Martin Jambor
PR lto/57208
* ipa-ref.h (ipa_maybe_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2013-07-23
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
I'm not really sure wha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #33 from Martin Jambor ---
I can confirm that one call of resid now gets inlined on the branch
even on x86_64 (I'm confused why, the dump seems to suggest all call
sites would violate param max-inline-insns-auto limit but then one
gets
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
When looking at PR 57904, I found out that inliner refused to even
consider __final_test2_T/0 because, according to the dump, "redefined
extern inline function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57987
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 30558
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30558&action=edit
An unsuccessful attempt to fix this
I attempted to fix this with the attached patch but it fails some Fortran
tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
So I only got to this and I definitely won't be able to finish it
today or even this week but here is what I have figured out so far.
We ICE when expanding statement
MEM[(struct resolved_chain *)_19].ips[j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57987
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Uh oh, but I do not really feel comfortable submitting a patch like
this that I do not understand at all but happens to pass the testsuite :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #6)
> hhmm..
>
> set_ptr_info_alignment is always called with align=4,
> and by the way, the crash goes away if I change this line
> (but I cannot tell if the code is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 30577
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30577&action=edit
Simple x86_64 testcase
Simple x86_64 testcase triggering the ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
The problem is that the type of the record that contains the scalar
data we are accessing has non-BLK mode despite that we are not
accessing a part of it. This is because it has a zero sized trailing
array:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #7)
> > In any event, it is clear that
> > the code in expand_assignment cannot cope with unaligned tem and non-NULL
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 30583
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30583&action=edit
Untested fix
This is how I'd like to fix the problem if the patch passes bootstrap
and testing (on x86_64-linux,
301 - 400 of 2387 matches
Mail list logo
