From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14678 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2008 12:31:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 14528 invoked by uid 48); 8 Jan 2008 12:30:22 -0000 Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:57:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080108123022.14527.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/34683] [4.3 Regression] Fortran FE generated IL pessimizes middle-end IL and analysis In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00711.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #30 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-08 12:30 ------- No, I didn't. But yes, overzealous asserts in the simple inline accessor functions are probably counter-productive. For example things like static inline bool gimple_aliases_computed_p (const struct function *fun) { gcc_assert (fun && fun->gimple_df); return fun->gimple_df->aliases_computed_p; } would segfault anyway if fun or fun->gimple_df would be NULL. Or static inline function_ann_t function_ann (const_tree t) { gcc_assert (t); gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (t) == FUNCTION_DECL); gcc_assert (!t->base.ann || t->base.ann->common.type == FUNCTION_ANN); return (function_ann_t) t->base.ann; } multiple asserts generate multiple diagnostic calls. Now, both of these functions are not in hot code-paths. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34683