public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/111922] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in cp with -O2 -fno-tree-fre
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:42:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-111922-4-uJYT744ZDf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-111922-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Well, in this case the user explicitly told compiler not to do that by not
> using a prototype and syntax which doesn't provide one from the definition.
> It is like using
> int f1 (struct C *x, struct A *y)
> {
> ...
> }
> definition in one TU, and
> int f1 (int, int);
> prototype and
> f1 (0, ~x)
> call in another one + using LTO. What I meant is how to do decide if the
> param_type vs. operand_type mismatch is ok or not.
I vote we do nothing extra for those clowns! Just return VARYING for a range
:-)
it seems like the safest thing to do?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-22 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-22 16:38 [Bug c/111922] New: GCC: internal compiler error: in decompose, at wide-int.h:1049 141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn
2023-10-22 16:39 ` [Bug c/111922] " 141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn
2023-10-22 16:41 ` [Bug ipa/111922] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in cp with -O2 -fno-tree-fre pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-23 16:51 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-22 14:27 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-22 16:25 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-11-22 16:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-22 17:29 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-11-22 17:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-22 17:42 ` amacleod at redhat dot com [this message]
2023-11-29 16:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-29 16:52 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-11-29 23:22 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-30 18:31 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
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=bug-111922-4-uJYT744ZDf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--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).