https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63348

--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to baoshan from comment #1)
> I believe this regression is introduced by the code for cleanup_barriers()
> in jump.c of patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg02164.html:
> 
> The call insn was followed by a barrier insn, the try_split() would emit
> another barrier insn after call insn for this case( I don't know why, please
> let me know the reason); after applying that patch and with option "-g"
> there would be a note instruction between the call and barrier insns which
> result no barrier insn is emitted by try_split().

Can you please try the patch at [1]?

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02180.html
>From gcc-bugs-return-462507-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Sep 25 06:53:25 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-462507-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6834 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2014 06:53:25 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6816 invoked by uid 48); 25 Sep 2014 06:53:22 -0000
From: "thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/63366] New: C++ __complex is not equivalent to __complex double
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:53:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
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: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-63366-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: 2014-09/txt/msg02341.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1047

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc366

            Bug ID: 63366
           Summary: C++ __complex is not equivalent to __complex double
           Product: gcc
           Version: 5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org

Created attachment 33559
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id3559&actioníit
Testcase showing that __complex is not equivalent to __complex double in C++

In function grokdeclarator () in cp/decl.c there is the following comment:

      /* If we just have "complex", it is equivalent to
         "complex double", but if any modifiers at all are specified it is
         the complex form of TYPE.  E.g, "complex short" is
         "complex short int".  */

However in practice __complex is equivalent to __complex int. The attached
testcase shows the problem and can be modified to try against __complex int.

Best regards.