From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32194 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2003 16:56:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32176 invoked by uid 71); 17 Mar 2003 16:56:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030317165601.32175.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: optimization/8300: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] [sparc] ICE in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:662 Reply-To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01148.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/8300; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Robert Schiele Cc: Andreas Schwab , Richard Henderson , , , Subject: Re: optimization/8300: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] [sparc] ICE in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:662 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:53:31 +0000 (GMT) On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Robert Schiele wrote: > My point, as far as I understand this situation, is that the compiler > should generate a binary out of it. The resulting code is completely > braindead --- I know that --- and may even SIGBUS or whatever he likes > to do at _runtime_, but I don't see, why this should be seen as > illegal at _compile_ time. Yes. There is existing precedent (va_arg with bad types) for generating an abort for code that provably generates undefined behaviour if ever executed, but is OK if never executed. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk