From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 976123858C53; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 19:41:58 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 976123858C53
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665776518;
	bh=miBRg+eowPSwc5SWsJxQSSNP54KJE2vIA84AxmU8uU8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=E0ACgRPaMe0/dBGsZmzCbEAJ/bw6F3R/K73ZkDrESjQk62l9PxhjE4XCEuw4qqOxH
	 23iagpWQ/sVtklTIPDhOAxvaiELNQk6Exy3eGf7dT1WaKsB8v1b8ti8wtVKwSUX8Qw
	 rtJETDxki+/3caQmlpuI5SQYcVK+DOw1OW2xllps=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107242] ICE: tree check: expected complex_cst, have
 plus_expr in output_constant, at varasm.cc:5284 with frounding-math
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 19:41:57 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107242-4-VLSDYmfEKe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107242-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107242-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107242

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> I think that either the C++ frontend needs to reject this code or we need=
 to
> ignore -frounding-math in constant folding this (I think we do that
> elsewhere).
>=20
> x86 is fine, presumambly because of ... !?

Because of the gimplifier deciding it should do the complex float move stru=
ct
by peices rather than a block.=