On 05/24/12 09:03, Richard Guenther wrote:
If you don't hear from somebody else in 24h the patch is ok as-is
(can you do some grepping whether there are callers of build_constructor
that set TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS on it afterwards?)
I committed the patch. grepping C & C++ sources didn't show calle
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 05/22/12 15:12, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> But I wonder why CONSTRUCTORs do not inherit TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS
>> properly ...
>
>
> the attached patch fixes the ICE and causes no regressions on
> i686-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> ok?
Looks ok to me.
On 05/22/12 15:12, Richard Guenther wrote:
But I wonder why CONSTRUCTORs do not inherit TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS
properly ...
the attached patch fixes the ICE and causes no regressions on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
ok?
nathan
2012-05-23 Nathan Sidwell
* tree.c (build_constructor): Propagate TREE_SIDE_
On 05/22/12 15:12, Richard Guenther wrote:
thanks!
But I wonder why CONSTRUCTORs do not inherit TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS
properly ...
yeah, that would seem to be the error. Looking ...
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 05/21/12 11:03, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> Hmm - I think this papers over the issue that the CONSTRUCTOR is not
>> properly gimplified - it still contains a TARGET_EXPR which is not valid
>> GIMPLE.
>> Why is that TARGET_EXPR not gimpli
On 05/21/12 11:03, Richard Guenther wrote:
Hmm - I think this papers over the issue that the CONSTRUCTOR is not
properly gimplified - it still contains a TARGET_EXPR which is not valid GIMPLE.
Why is that TARGET_EXPR not gimplified?
As far as I can make out, it just doesn't look inside the con
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> In building a ppc cross compiler using a freshly built native compiler, I
> encountered an ICE in iterative_hash_expr compiling c-lex.c. I extracted
> the attached testcase, showing the problem is with statement expressions.
> Investigation
