From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8438 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2015 07:30:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8393 invoked by uid 48); 19 Mar 2015 07:30:17 -0000 From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/60851] [4.9/5 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.c:2117 with -flive-range-shrinkage -mdispatch-scheduler -march=bdver4 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:30:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ubizjak at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cc component assigned_to Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg01901.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D60851 Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|uros at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.= org Component|target |rtl-optimization Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail do= t com --- Comment #10 from Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak --- Patch at [1]. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00975.html >>From gcc-bugs-return-480758-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Mar 19 07:31:06 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11974 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2015 07:31:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11799 invoked by uid 48); 19 Mar 2015 07:31:00 -0000 From: "jens.gustedt at inria dot fr" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/65455] typeof _Atomic fails Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:31:00 -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: 4.9.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jens.gustedt at inria dot fr X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg01902.txt.bz2 Content-length: 1635 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455 --- Comment #11 from Jens Gustedt --- (In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #10) > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, jens.gustedt at inria dot fr wrote: > > > (Perhaps gcc interprets _Generic as you say, but even the standard committee > > doesn't agree on that interpretation, and other compiler implementors don't > > agree either. Nothing in the standard says that it is an rvalue, nor that it > > has to undergo any conversion. Conversion for non-evaluated expressions simply > > doesn't exist in the standard. The standard explicitly asks for compatible type > > of the expression itself, it says nothing about unqualified type.) > > There isn't yet a conclusion to DR#423, but the committee discussion in > N1892 says 'Specifically, the controlling expression of a generic > selection "was very carefully not added" to the list of cases where lvalue > conversion is not done.' (i.e. that conversion happens to all expressions > unless excluded from happening). There is no indication of a committee > direction contradicting the approach I chose for GCC (even if the > committee isn't quite sure of how to handle atomics there, and has > suggested making qualifiers on function return types not part of the > type). And now we are exactly in the situation that I was afraid of happening, compiler implementors interpret _Generic differently. Your interpretation and the one that clang applies differ and make it that code with _Generic isn't portable. That is just a disaster for an early (well not so early anymore) adoption of C11.