public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/34005] [4.3 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (expected an SSA_NAME object) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:00:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20071127155957.12607.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-34005-12387@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> ------- Comment #8 from jakub at redhat dot com 2007-11-27 15:59 ------- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (expected an SSA_NAME object) > I think the problems only appeared if allow_rhs_cond_expr was enabled > for the gimplification pass (when called from the loop optimizer, > the expressions passed to gimplifier do not have any side effects, > so you would not detect any problem even if you removed the > TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS check). Even then, what failure was it? gimplify_pure_cond_expr gimplifies all the 3 arguments anyway, so if they have side-effects, they just end up being evaluated into temporaries which are then used in the COND_EXPR. Anyway, can you please follow up to Diego's mail, either agree to remove that, or justify it? Apart from a typo in ChangeLog entry that was his only objection and it would be good to have this P1 fixed ASAP. > yes, although making it work that way is more complicated; it would require > changes in the # of iterations analysis, to get Ok. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34005
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-27 16:00 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2007-11-06 15:52 [Bug tree-optimization/34005] New: " tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 15:52 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34005] " tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 15:52 ` tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-06 18:11 ` dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 18:30 ` dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 18:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 22:08 ` tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-27 5:56 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 14:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 15:04 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2007-11-27 16:00 ` jakub at redhat dot com [this message] 2007-11-27 16:04 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2007-11-27 16:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 16:45 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2007-11-28 13:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-28 13:45 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2007-12-04 8:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 10:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 10:08 ` jakub 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=20071127155957.12607.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: linkBe 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).