* [Bug tree-optimization/16277] [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-06-29 16:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-29 16:45 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-29 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-29 16:42 -------
One this is not a SSA variable, this is just a split variable from this.
And the reason why this is printed twice is again because of the ABI and in/out of charge constructors
(and cloning).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16277] [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-06-29 16:43 ` [Bug tree-optimization/16277] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-29 16:45 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-06-29 16:58 ` [Bug c++/16277] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-06-29 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-06-29 16:43 -------
That was actually simpler than thought:
------------------
struct X {
X ();
~X ();
unsigned size() const;
};
struct D {
D (const X &);
const X a;
};
D::D (const X &v)
:
a (v.size() == 0 ? X () : v)
{}
--------------------
parameter-estimation/libparest> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.5-pre/bin/c++ -O2
-Wuninitialized -c x.cc
x.cc: In constructor `D::D(const X&)':
x.cc:15: warning: 'this.1' is used uninitialized in this function
x.cc: In constructor `D::D(const X&)':
x.cc:15: warning: 'this.1' is used uninitialized in this function
There is indeed nothing uninitialized in the code, it's a compiler bug.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-06-29 16:43 ` [Bug tree-optimization/16277] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-29 16:45 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-06-29 16:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-30 2:55 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-29 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-29 16:51 -------
Looking at the tree Dumps, this looks like a bug in the C++ front-end rather than the optimizations:
>From *.original:
T.0 = size (v);
if (T.0 == 0)
{
this.1 = (struct X *)this;
__comp_ctor (this.1);
}
else
{
*this.1 = *v;
}
try
{
}
catch
{
this.2 = (struct X *)this;
__comp_dtor (this.2);
}
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |critical
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|tree-optimization |c++
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords| |diagnostic, wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-06-29 16:51:28
date| |
Target Milestone|--- |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-29 16:58 ` [Bug c++/16277] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-30 2:55 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-06-30 21:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-06-30 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-06-30 02:50 -------
Sorry? this.1 is initialized using this, which is a parm.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-30 2:55 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-06-30 21:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-30 22:17 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-30 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-30 21:41 -------
Look at the tree dump I gave again, this.1 is stored to in the false case but only set in the true case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-30 21:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-30 22:17 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-15 18:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-06-30 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-06-30 22:12 -------
I had to think about the same question as Giovanni. In short: in the else-branch,
we just have
{
*this.1 = *v;
}
i.e. we write into *this.1 (the address pointed to) without initializing this.1 (the pointer).
We're fine in the if-branch, where we initialize this.1 first.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-30 22:17 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-07-15 18:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-15 19:04 ` [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Wrong code with conditionals in initializers bangerth at dealii dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-15 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-15 18:55 -------
*** Bug 16568 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |snyder at fnal dot gov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Wrong code with conditionals in initializers
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-15 18:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-15 19:04 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-22 4:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-07-15 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-07-15 19:04 -------
PR 16585 has an example where this actually leads to wrong code.
Fixing this bug is critical.
W.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[3.5 regression] Still |[3.5 regression] Wrong code
|spurious warnings about |with conditionals in
|unused SSA variables |initializers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Wrong code with conditionals in initializers
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-15 19:04 ` [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Wrong code with conditionals in initializers bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-07-22 4:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-22 23:15 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-22 4:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-22 04:58 -------
Using Phil's regression hunter a little I found these are the dates when it was introduced:
469 (2004-06-20) - 470 (2004-06-22)
I almost think it is this patch:
2004-06-20 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
* cp-tree.def (CLEANUP_STMT, IF_STMT): Move from c-common.def.
* cp-gimplify.c (gimplify_if_stmt): Move from c-gimplify.c.
(cp_gimplify_expr): Call it.
(gimplify_cleanup_stmt): Move from c-gimplify.c.
(cp_genericize): New.
* decl.c (finish_function): Call it.
* cp-tree.h (cp_stmt_codes): Add CLEANUP_STMT, IF_STMT.
(CLEANUP_BODY, CLEANUP_EXPR, CLEANUP_DECL): Move from c-common.h.
(IF_COND, THEN_CLAUSE, ELSE_CLAUSE): Likewise.
(cp_genericize): Declare.
* cxx-pretty-print.c (pp_cxx_statement): Add CLEANUP_STMT, IF_STMT.
* dump.c (cp_dump_tree): Likewise.
* semantics.c (push_cleanup): Move from c-semantics.c.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Wrong code with conditionals in initializers
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-22 4:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-22 23:15 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-23 22:48 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-23 22:55 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-22 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-22 23:15 -------
That patch isn't the culprit, but I'm fixing it anyway.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Wrong code with conditionals in initializers
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-22 23:15 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-23 22:48 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-23 22:55 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-23 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-23 22:48 -------
Subject: Bug 16277
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: rth@gcc.gnu.org 2004-07-23 22:48:15
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog gimplify.c
Log message:
PR c++/16277
* gimplify.c (gimplify_cond_expr): Gimplify TARGET to a min_lval;
unshare it properly.
(gimplify_modify_expr_rhs): Push assignment from a conditional into
the conditional for all non-register types.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.4654&r2=2.4655
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/gimplify.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.52&r2=2.53
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16277] [3.5 regression] Wrong code with conditionals in initializers
2004-06-29 16:35 [Bug tree-optimization/16277] New: [3.5 regression] Still spurious warnings about unused SSA variables bangerth at dealii dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-23 22:48 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-23 22:55 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-23 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-23 22:55 -------
Fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16277
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread