From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21371 invoked by alias); 23 May 2011 15:04:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 21360 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2011 15:04:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:04:38 +0000 Received: (qmail 28499 invoked from network); 23 May 2011 15:04:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.78?) (froydnj@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 23 May 2011 15:04:37 -0000 Message-ID: <4DDA7783.6050301@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:52:00 -0000 From: Nathan Froyd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0a2) Gecko/20110505 Thunderbird/3.3a4pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom de Vries CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] split tree_type, a.k.a. "tuplifying types" References: <20110510161543.GW23480@codesourcery.com> <4DD954D8.5000307@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4DD954D8.5000307@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg01647.txt.bz2 On 05/22/2011 02:24 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: > Now that struct tree_type does not exist anymore, 'sizeof (struct tree_type)' > generates an error in the following assert in fold_checksum_tree: > ... > gcc_assert ((sizeof (struct tree_exp) + 5 * sizeof (tree) > <= sizeof (struct tree_function_decl)) > && sizeof (struct tree_type) <= sizeof (struct tree_function_decl)); > ... > > This error is triggered with -enable-checking=fold. Doh. Thanks for the report. The easy fix is s/tree_type/tree_type_non_common/. But I don't see why the assert has to even care about tree_type; doesn't: gcc_assert ((sizeof (struct tree_exp) + 5 * sizeof (tree) <= sizeof (union tree_node)); accomplish the same thing? -Nathan