------- Comment #13 from rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2007-11-28 13:45 ------- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (expected an SSA_NAME object)
> ------- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-28 13:20 > ------- > So, shouldn't the expression_without_side_effects_p routine just be renamed > to expression_could_trap_p, otherwise it will be confused again and again with > !TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS on the expr? The gimplify_cond_expr new hunk then could be > + if (gimplify_ctxp->allow_rhs_cond_expr > + /* If either branch has side effects or could trap, it can't be > + evaluated unconditionally. */ > + && !TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 1)) > + && !expression_could_trap_p (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 1)) > + && !TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 2)) > + && !expression_could_trap_p (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 2))) > + return gimplify_pure_cond_expr (expr_p, pre_p); > > This would allow side effects on condition of the COND_EXPR, and at least to > me > would be less confusing (and given that Diego raised that question first, I'm > probably not alone). that would be fine with me (it would be safer than changing the semantics of TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS). I guess it is up to Diego, I am willing to do it either way. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34005
