public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jh at suse dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/30017] [4.3 Regression] ICE in cp_expr_size, at cp/cp-objcp-common.c:101
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:54:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061130185403.29408.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-30017-10053@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #14 from jh at suse dot cz  2006-11-30 18:54 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression] ICE in cp_expr_size, at cp/cp-objcp-common.c:101

> > The code has not undefined behavior, but I think removing the check is ok (it's
> > certainly not supposed to trigger _inside_ the assignment operator or the
> > copy constructor).
> 
> Actually I don't think removing that check is ok.  Allows us to find problems
> with the gimplifier, when it is trying to create a temprorary variable when it
> should not.

Well, actually we probably need to decide on one thing - ie if we want
to allow such a moves later at gimple form.  I would say that we want to
as we want to make gimple language indepdendent in longer form and thus
classes are just aggregates as of any kind and assigning them is safe.
If we don't want to, we need to come with check prohibiting builtins.c
to construct the assignment.
If we want to, we need to find way to either relax or elliminate the
check or move it to better place.  I still wonder why do we need
expr_size hook that late in compilation?
(ie using TYPE_UNIT_SIZE instead would solve the problem too)

Honza


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30017


  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-11-30 18:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-11-29 16:32 [Bug c++/30017] New: " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-29 16:33 ` [Bug c++/30017] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-29 17:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-29 18:46 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-29 19:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-29 19:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-29 19:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-30  4:18 ` [Bug middle-end/30017] [4.3 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-30 13:06 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-30 13:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-30 14:04 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2006-11-30 14:06 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2006-11-30 14:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-30 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-30 18:54 ` jh at suse dot cz [this message]
2007-05-23  1:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-29 17:47 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-08-10  0:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20061130185403.29408.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).