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
13 matches
Mail list logo
