[Bug c++/63419] verify_gimple failed: "vector CONSTRUCTOR element is not a GIMPLE value"

[Bug c++/63419] verify_gimple failed: "vector CONSTRUCTOR element is not a GIMPLE value"

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-10-01
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Mine.

[Bug c++/63419] verify_gimple failed: "vector CONSTRUCTOR element is not a GIMPLE value"

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 33682
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33682&action=edit
autoreduced testcase

Fix in testing, autoreduced testcase attached (still too big for my taste).

[Bug c++/63419] verify_gimple failed: "vector CONSTRUCTOR element is not a GIMPLE value"

[trippels at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419

Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |trippels at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 33683
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33683&action=edit
bit more reduced with Creduce

[Bug c++/63419] verify_gimple failed: "vector CONSTRUCTOR element is not a GIMPLE value"

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.

[Bug c++/63419] verify_gimple failed: "vector CONSTRUCTOR element is not a GIMPLE value"

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 13 07:58:05 2014
New Revision: 216138

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216138&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-13  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>

    PR tree-optimization/63419
    * gimple-fold.h (gimple_convert): New function.
    * gimple-fold.c (gimple_convert): Likewise.
    * tree-ssa-pre.c (create_expression_by_pieces): Use gimple_convert
    to split out required conversions early.

    * g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C: New testcase.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/gimple-fold.c
    trunk/gcc/gimple-fold.h
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c

[Bug c++/63419] verify_gimple failed: "vector CONSTRUCTOR element is not a GIMPLE value"

[pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419

Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> 
> 	* g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C: New testcase.

The new testcase fails on PowerPC with -m32. From
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-10/msg01455.html:
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C   -O2  (test for excess errors)
...


Simple compile shows warning msgs generated.

[pthaugen@igoo testsuite]$ ~/install/gcc/trunk/bin/g++ -c -O0
~/src/gcc/trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C -m32
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C: In
member function ‘void I<UnaryOp, XprType, int>::packet(typename
traits<CwiseUnaryOp<UnaryOp, XprType> >::Index) [with int LoadMode = 0; UnaryOp
= D; XprType = L<K<float, 0, 1> >; typename traits<CwiseUnaryOp<UnaryOp,
XprType> >::Index = int]’:
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C:181:5:
warning: GCC vector returned by reference: non-standard ABI extension with no
compatibility guarantee
     derived ().functor ().packetOp (
     ^
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C: In
member function ‘void D::packetOp(C<float>::type)’:
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr63419.C:39:3:
warning: GCC vector passed by reference: non-standard ABI extension with no
compatibility guarantee
   packetOp (C<float>::type)
   ^
>From gcc-bugs-return-464071-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Oct 14 19:31:13 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-464071-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 10390 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2014 19:31:12 -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 9944 invoked by uid 48); 14 Oct 2014 19:31:07 -0000
From: "law at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/16351] NULL dereference warnings
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:31:00 -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: 4.0.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: law at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: law at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-16351-4-DyNUb1SBQC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-16351-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-16351-4@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: 2014-10/txt/msg01092.txt.bz2
Content-length: 552

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id\x16351

--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
It's annoying, but I suspect others see this as so low priority as not to care.

As for just committing my patch, I could make an argument that I ought to be
able to do that, but we (the project) make a conscious decision to avoid that
kind of behaviour, except for well defined areas.  I'd consider this on the
borderline and I believe it's particularly important that I adhere to the
policies the project has put in place over time.

[Bug c++/63419] verify_gimple failed: "vector CONSTRUCTOR element is not a GIMPLE value"

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The testcase should have // { dg-options "-Wno-psabi" }