> I'm running bootstrap & testing on x86_64 right now and will commit the
> patch (it's quite sound to me - ADDR_EXPR is no different from PLUS_EXPR
> or POINTER_PLUS_EXPR with respect to UNDEFINED handling).
Thanks. It would be nice to commit the testcase I posted in the first message.
--
Eric
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> That helps reproducing it. The issue is that this really is a transition
>> in the wrong direction. We iterate
>>
>> Visiting statement:
>> D.2928_263 = (sizetype) i.29_262;
>> which is likely UNDEFINED
>> Lattice value changed to UNDEFIN
> That helps reproducing it. The issue is that this really is a transition
> in the wrong direction. We iterate
>
> Visiting statement:
> D.2928_263 = (sizetype) i.29_262;
> which is likely UNDEFINED
> Lattice value changed to UNDEFINED. Adding SSA edges to worklist.
> ...
> Visiting statement:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Hmm, the point is of couse to not allow transitions that could form a
>> cycle, which is why the reverse transition is not allowed.
>>
>> Let me have a closer look here.
>
> You can reproduce on your favorite platform by locally copying the
> Hmm, the point is of couse to not allow transitions that could form a
> cycle, which is why the reverse transition is not allowed.
>
> Let me have a closer look here.
You can reproduce on your favorite platform by locally copying the system.ads
from gcc/ada/rts in your build tree and turning Z
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> This is a regression present on mainline and 4.7 branch for targets using SJLJ
> exceptions by default in Ada (e.g. ARM). The error message is:
>
> +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
> | 4.8.0 201207
