public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/37236] [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE: in mark_operand_necessary, at tree-ssa-dce.c:242
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080825223233.26191.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-37236-4334@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-25 22:32 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Whether it is the current standard or
> not, it was legal years ago, and tons of legacy code (like this one) have it.
It has never been legal. Yes, legacy codes abuse the dummy argument
syntax of X(1) to mean X(*), but it has never been legal to access
X(2) if you declared the dummy argument as X(1).
> Like Dominique in Comment #6, I'd urge you to fix this.
If you re-read my original comment, you'll note that I stated that
gcc should never ICE. This would imply that, yes, gcc should be
fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37236
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-25 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-25 19:40 [Bug fortran/37236] New: internal compiler error: " ronis at ronispc dot chem dot mcgill dot ca
2008-08-25 19:58 ` [Bug middle-end/37236] " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-25 20:05 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2008-08-25 20:39 ` [Bug middle-end/37236] [4.3, 4.4 Regression] ICE: " kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-25 20:40 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-25 20:41 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-25 20:50 ` [Bug middle-end/37236] [4.3/4.4 " dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2008-08-25 21:46 ` ronis at ronispc dot chem dot mcgill dot ca
2008-08-25 22:33 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2008-08-27 11:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-27 22:13 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-29 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-29 11:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-29 11:51 ` [Bug middle-end/37236] [4.3 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-20 15:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-20 15:42 ` rguenth 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=20080825223233.26191.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).