public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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 19:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070621193328.19706.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-20623-7559@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-21 19:33 -------
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed
by fold with --enable-checking=fold
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, spop at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- 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.
This looks good (again ;)).
Thanks,
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20623
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-21 19:33 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
2007-06-21 19:33 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message]
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=20070621193328.19706.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).