From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31686 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2011 14:06:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 31677 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2011 14:06:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,TW_TM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:06:22 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD268B2F9; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:06:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:26:00 -0000 From: Michael Matz To: Richard Guenther Cc: Jakub Jelinek , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Andrew Pinski Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle COND_EXPR/VEC_COND_EXPR in walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops and ssa verification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20111013132952.GM2210@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: 2011-10/txt/msg01282.txt.bz2 Hi, On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > But I'm not sure. I think we should delete this check from > verify_ssa and instead have a corresponding check in > verify_stmts (which already properly walks trees) that > for an SSA name we encounter we do have a properly linked use > (see verify_expr, maybe it's easy to do that for the SSA_NAME > case - at least it's easy without trying to avoid a > FOR_EACH_SSA_USE_OPERAND (, SSA_OP_USE) on the stmt for > each SSA_NAME we encounter). Whatever we do with this check, it should be ensured that it still triggers on gcc.dg/pr45415.c at revision r163821. IIRC to find the cause for this bug caused some more gray hair on my part :) Ciao, Michael.