On Mar 20, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Hmm, I think force_gimple_oeprand overwrites what is in &pre so can
> you try with using a temporary sequence for force_gimple_operand and
> appending that to pre afterwards instead?
Indeed, that solves the problem. I'll prepare the patch f
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:52 AM, Bill Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I was confused in thinking gimplify_expr would handle the case
>>> properly. For
>>> just gimplifyi
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:52 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>
>> No, I was confused in thinking gimplify_expr would handle the case
>> properly. For
>> just gimplifying side-effects we should use the middle-end
>> gimplification mac
Hi,
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> No, I was confused in thinking gimplify_expr would handle the case
> properly. For
> just gimplifying side-effects we should use the middle-end
> gimplification machinery:
>
> Index: tree-stdarg.c
> ===
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
>
>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Bill Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Your suggestion failed bootstrap in libiberty on vprintf-support.c.
>>> Compilation failed with:
>>>
>>> /home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-mainline-test2-debug/gcc/xgcc
>>> -B/ho
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Bill Schmidt
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:04 AM,
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>>
>> Your suggestion failed bootstrap in libiberty on vprintf-support.c.
>> Compilation failed with:
>>
>> /home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-mainline-test2-debug/gcc/xgcc
>> -B/home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-mainline-test2-debug/gcc/
>> -B/hom
On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>
> Better is sth like
>
> Index: gcc/tree-stdarg.c
> ===
> --- gcc/tree-stdarg.c (revision 246082
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Bill Schmidt
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:04 AM,
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
>
>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Bill Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Bill Schmidt
>>> wrote:
Index: gcc/tree-stdarg.c
=
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Bill Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Index: gcc/tree-stdarg.c
>>> ===
>>> --- gcc
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>>
>> Index: gcc/tree-stdarg.c
>> ===
>> --- gcc/tree-stdarg.c (revision 246109)
>> +++ gcc/tree-stdarg.c (work
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79908 shows a case where
> pass_stdarg ICEs attempting to gimplify a COMPLEX_EXPR with side
> effects as an lvalue. The expression is not addressable, so the
> gimplification fails. This p
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79908 shows a case where
pass_stdarg ICEs attempting to gimplify a COMPLEX_EXPR with side
effects as an lvalue. The expression is not addressable, so the
gimplification fails. This patch says, hey, don't do that!
The resulting GIMPLE looks fine
14 matches
Mail list logo
