On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:34:01PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Although I said this was invalid code, it really isn't -- it's legal code.
>> It's more of an ice-on-stupid-code situation. :) So probably you should
>> remove the "in
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:34:01PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Although I said this was invalid code, it really isn't -- it's legal code.
> It's more of an ice-on-stupid-code situation. :) So probably you should
> remove the "invalid" language from the commentary. Sorry for misleading you.
W
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:45:07AM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> index 10c5521..e21b56f 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> @@ -16297,6 +16297,9 @@ rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin (gimple_stm
Although I said this was invalid code, it really isn't -- it's legal code.
It's more of an ice-on-stupid-code situation. :) So probably you should remove
the "invalid" language from the commentary. Sorry for misleading you.
-- Bill
Bill Schmidt, Ph.D.
GCC for Linux on Power
Linux on Power To
Hi,
Do not do the gimple-folding optimizations of expressions that are
missing their LHS. (Preventing an ICE on invalid code).
This was noticed during debug of PR81317, but is not a fix for that PR.
This is based on a patch suggested by Segher.
(This will need a revisit if/when we get a
