------- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-28 12:20 ------- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Segfault in set_bb_for_stmt with -O -ftree-vectorize
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote: > > > ------- Comment #6 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2007-06-28 11:41 ------- > ((float*) (&((sbuf_header_t *) ((buf) == &(buf)->buf[0]))->buf[0]))[i] = val; > > is (after ommiting the casts) > > *(1B + (i * 4)) = val; > > Is that legal? "Legal" as far as that you are not allowed to reject it at compile-time. Of course runtime behavior looks completely undefined ;) > Vectorizer assumes that every data-ref has base_address. In the above case we > get the following data-ref structure: > base_address: 0B > offset from base address: 0 > constant offset from base address: 1 > step: 4 > aligned to: 128 > base_object: *0B > symbol tag: SMT.5 > > therefore, creating an empty stmt for the first access of the data-ref in the > loop. > > Before Zdenek's rewrite of data-refs analysis, it failed to create a dr here, > and thus no segfault occurred. I suppose rejecting NULL bases should work here? Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32230
