From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-312955-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13876 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2010 19:08:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 13813 invoked by uid 48); 27 Mar 2010 19:08:30 -0000
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:08:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20100327190830.13812.qmail@sourceware.org>
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
References: <bug-42958-10053@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Subject: [Bug fortran/42958] Weird temporary array allocation
In-Reply-To: <bug-42958-10053@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg02821.txt.bz2



------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-03-27 19:08 -------
The gimplifier of course transforms the COND_EXPRs back to control flow, thus
the CFG looks like

  D.1616 = D.1612 < 0;
  D.1617 = D.1612 + 1;
  if (D.1616 != 0)
    goto <bb 32>;
  else
    goto <bb 33>;

<bb 32>:
  iftmp.17 = 0;
  goto <bb 34>;

<bb 33>:
  iftmp.17 = D.1617 * 8;

<bb 34>:
  D.1618 = iftmp.17;
  D.1795 = MAX_EXPR <D.1618, 1>;
  D.1619 = __builtin_malloc (D.1795);

the question is if the check for negative size is really necessary for
compiler-generated allocations of array temporaries.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958