public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "spop at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/20623] ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with --enable-checking=fold
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:21:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070621182105.16542.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-20623-7559@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #26 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 18:21 -------
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with
--enable-checking=fold
Just to sum it up, and for asking for advice,
attached is the patch that I'm bootstrapping and testing now.
> Another thing would be to note where we call this helper from fold() routines
> and not set the flag only for those callers which should be safe. We'd need
> another flag argument to the function or another wrapper.
>
In another version of this patch, I replaced all the callers from the
folder, to use a gcc_assert (TREE_ADDRESSABLE (base) == 1), and this
failed because some calls from the C front-end used that function and
did not have set their addressable flag (yet?). This resulted in all
the fails left in the second part of the bug.
With the attached patch, fold functions do not set that flag, and this
solves the remaining fails. I'm bootstrapping and testing all
languages again with fold checking.
Sebastian
------- Comment #27 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 18:21 -------
Created an attachment (id=13760)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13760&action=view)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20623
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-21 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-20623-7559@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-25 19:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-26 14:17 ` micis at gmx dot de
2005-10-26 16:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-16 2:51 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-21 13:59 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-02 20:12 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com
2007-01-16 4:52 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-18 14:42 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-20 12:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-20 18:50 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-20 22:46 ` rob1weld at aol dot com
2007-06-20 22:58 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-20 23:32 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-21 8:00 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2007-06-21 8:02 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2007-06-21 8:16 ` richard dot guenther at gmail dot com
2007-06-21 8:21 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-21 8:48 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2007-06-21 10:07 ` richard dot guenther at gmail dot com
2007-06-21 18:21 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2007-06-21 19:33 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2007-06-21 20:56 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-21 21:25 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-24 2:23 ` rob1weld at aol dot com
2007-06-24 17:46 ` rob1weld at aol dot com
2007-06-24 18:41 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-25 5:06 ` rob1weld at aol dot com
2007-06-25 5:44 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-30 2:16 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-30 2:23 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-26 7:18 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-12 14:22 ` rmansfield at qnx dot com
2010-02-27 14:06 ` zsojka at seznam dot cz
[not found] <bug-20623-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2021-08-17 2:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2005-03-24 15:07 [Bug tree-optimization/20623] New: " micis at gmx dot de
2005-04-16 16:38 ` [Bug middle-end/20623] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-31 16:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-04 21:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-05 10:49 ` micis at gmx dot de
2005-08-18 5:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-18 6:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-29 0:12 ` dberlin 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=20070621182105.16542.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).