public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/56481] [4.8 Regression] endless loop compiling a C++ file
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:00:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-56481-4-q21IdroeP2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-56481-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56481

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2013-02-28
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.0
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-28 11:59:57 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
struct S
{
  bool foo () const;
#define A(n) , f##n##0, f##n##1, f##n##2, f##n##3
#define B(n) A(n##0) A(n##1) A(n##2) A(n##3)
#define C B(0) B(1) B(2) B(3)
  bool f C;
};

bool
S::foo () const
{
#undef A
#define A(n) && f##n##0 && f##n##1 && f##n##2 && f##n##3
  const bool ret = f C;
  return ret;
}


Started with my http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192862
It actually isn't endless, just the compile time complexity is bad.

The problem is I think in:
        if (!potential_constant_expression_1 (op, rval, flags))
          return false;
        if (!processing_template_decl)
          op = maybe_constant_value (op);
in TRUTH_{AND,OR}*_EXPR handling in potential_constant_expression_1, because
maybe_constant_value calls potential_constant_expression (op) again.
They are called with different second/third argument (false, tf_none inside
maybe_constant_value, or true (== rval), flags above) though, so I think the
fix wouldn't be as easy as inlining maybe_constant_value by hand here and
avoiding the potential_constant_expression there.
Jason, any ideas?
For large && or || expressions perhaps we could just handle the cases where
op is the same code specially, still we wouldn't get rid of the large
complexity if say TRUTH_AND*_EXPR is only in every second code and there is
some other code in between.


  reply	other threads:[~2013-02-28 12:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-28 10:32 [Bug c++/56481] New: " doko at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 12:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2013-02-28 16:58 ` [Bug c++/56481] " jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 17:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 20:22 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 20:37 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 20:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-17  2:38 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.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=bug-56481-4-q21IdroeP2@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).