* RFC: Bogus gimplification type mismatch error ?
@ 2007-08-20 10:59 Nick Clifton
2007-08-20 12:21 ` Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nick Clifton @ 2007-08-20 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs; +Cc: binutils
Hi Guys,
I tried bootstrapping the mainline gcc sources over the weekend,
using the current mainline binutils sources in an integrated source
tree. The bootstrap failed with a problem in bfd/elflink.c which I
have already reported and worked around. The build then failed
later on with this error message:
opcodes/i386-dis.c:4213: error: type mismatch in pointer plus expression
struct dis386 *
struct dis386[8] *
unsigned int
dp = &float_reg + D.7721
I tracked this down to this line in i386-dis.c:
dp = &float_reg[floatop - 0xd8][modrm.reg];
where the variables involved are typed as:
const struct dis386 *dp;
static const struct dis386 float_reg[][8] = { ....
To me this looks wrong. Gcc appears to have converted multiple
deferences of a multidimensional array into a single dereference of
the multidimensional array.
I found a workaround by explicitly performing the two dereferences
one after another like this:
{
typedef struct dis386 eight_dis386 [8];
const eight_dis386 *dp8;
dp8 = float_reg + (floatop - 0xd8);
dp = dp8[modrm.reg];
}
But before I check such a patch in I would like to know if the gcc
error message is really correct, or if I have run across a
gimplification bug.
Cheers
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: Bogus gimplification type mismatch error ?
2007-08-20 10:59 RFC: Bogus gimplification type mismatch error ? Nick Clifton
@ 2007-08-20 12:21 ` Andrew Pinski
2007-08-20 19:51 ` Nick Clifton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2007-08-20 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Clifton; +Cc: gcc-bugs, binutils
On 8/20/07, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
> But before I check such a patch in I would like to know if the gcc
> error message is really correct, or if I have run across a
> gimplification bug.
As mentioned before this error message is really an internal error, we
really should be fixing GCC and not changing binutils. And I already
mentioned this is most likely PR 22371 and that you should be filing
bug reports about these two errors/ICEs.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: Bogus gimplification type mismatch error ?
2007-08-20 12:21 ` Andrew Pinski
@ 2007-08-20 19:51 ` Nick Clifton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nick Clifton @ 2007-08-20 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Pinski; +Cc: gcc-bugs, binutils
Hi Andrew,
> As mentioned before this error message is really an internal error, we
> really should be fixing GCC and not changing binutils. And I already
> mentioned this is most likely PR 22371 and that you should be filing
> bug reports about these two errors/ICEs.
I have filed PR 33122 to cover this problem and added a comment to PR 22371
mentioning that 33122 might be a duplicate.
Cheers
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-08-20 13:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-08-20 10:59 RFC: Bogus gimplification type mismatch error ? Nick Clifton
2007-08-20 12:21 ` Andrew Pinski
2007-08-20 19:51 ` Nick Clifton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).