From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-26779-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9109 invoked by alias); 27 Dec 2002 08:46:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 9090 invoked by uid 71); 27 Dec 2002 08:46:02 -0000
Resent-Date: 27 Dec 2002 08:46:02 -0000
Resent-Message-ID: <20021227084602.9089.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
Resent-From: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org (GNATS Filer)
Resent-Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Resent-Reply-To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, geist@foobox.com
Received: (qmail 8801 invoked by uid 61); 27 Dec 2002 08:41:17 -0000
Message-Id: <20021227084117.8797.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:46:00 -0000
From: geist@foobox.com
Reply-To: geist@foobox.com
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
X-Send-Pr-Version: gnatsweb-2.9.3 (1.1.1.1.2.31)
Subject: middle-end/9063: invalid compile-time evaluation of tertiary expression
X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01308.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>


>Number:         9063
>Category:       middle-end
>Synopsis:       invalid compile-time evaluation of tertiary expression
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Dec 27 00:46:01 PST 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Travis Geiselbrecht
>Release:        gcc version 3.2.2 20021212 (Debian prerelease)
>Organization:
>Environment:
Debian Linux 3.0 testing. x86 pc
>Description:
The following minimal program will reproduce if compiled with 
any levels of optimization. 

Problem:
the expression (100000 + 1 ? 99 : 0) takes on a value of '99',
instead of the expected 100099. A simple addition of parenthesis
to produce (100000 + (1 ? 99 : 0)) produces the proper result.

Not incredibly serious, but I bumped into it and took a while to
figure out. Reproduced on 2.95.4, 3.0.4, and this 3.2.2 pre-release
version in debian. Originally seen on 3.0.4 i386.
>How-To-Repeat:
# 1 "bug.c"
# 1 "<built-in>"
# 1 "<command line>"
# 1 "bug.c"


int main()
{
        printf("value of expression %d should be %d\n", (100000 + 1 ? 99 : 0), (100000 + (1 ? 99 : 0)));
        return 0;
}
>Fix:
Add parentheses around the tertiary operator.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: