From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3803 invoked by alias); 19 May 2003 15:36:00 -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 3757 invoked by uid 71); 19 May 2003 15:36:00 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030519153600.3755.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: law@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Diego Novillo Subject: Re: optimization/10862: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty function Reply-To: Diego Novillo X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02095.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/10862; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Diego Novillo To: bangerth@dealii.org, bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, law@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, "gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org" Cc: Subject: Re: optimization/10862: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty function Date: 19 May 2003 11:27:21 -0400 On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 10:51, bangerth@dealii.org wrote: > Synopsis: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty function > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->law > Responsible-Changed-By: bangerth > Responsible-Changed-When: Mon May 19 14:51:18 2003 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > Jeff, you had been doing the tree-ssa C++ stuff, right? Or > is there someone else whom I could bother? > It's not actually a C++ problem. It was a bug in DCE when removing a conditional that had no basic blocks after it. > Besides, apart from this one and 10863 (which triggers > _really_ frequent on my code), the tree-ssa branch seems > to be in pretty good shape -- thanks! > I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for testing! Diego.