> > Please do that on the 4.7 branch as well if the assertion is incorrect.
>
> Done.
Thanks. I've now reverted the kludge I put for Ada because of it:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01616.html
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:23:00PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > On IRC I've been told that is OK and the that CCP cannot make such
> > assumtions. Since it is only a missed-optimization if the call to the
> > builtin is not found and processed (basically PR 51491 again but only
> > in case
> On IRC I've been told that is OK and the that CCP cannot make such
> assumtions. Since it is only a missed-optimization if the call to the
> builtin is not found and processed (basically PR 51491 again but only
> in cases like these), I thought it best to just remove the assert by
> the followin
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when testing a different patch of mine I hit the assert in
> insert_clobbers_for_var which is there to make sure that there is a
> call to builtin_stack_save in a BB with or dominating a call to
> builtin_alloca_with_align. In my case that was
Hi,
when testing a different patch of mine I hit the assert in
insert_clobbers_for_var which is there to make sure that there is a
call to builtin_stack_save in a BB with or dominating a call to
builtin_alloca_with_align. In my case that was not true because the
DOM pass duplicated the call to bu
