https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961 > > Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Created attachment 43716 > --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43716&action=edit > gcc8-pr84961.patch > > So like this? Yes. > Or of course the gimplifier could do it too. Sure, I tried and it looks somewhat awkward to teach it this. Is a MODIFY_EXPR in GENERIC considered an lvalue? I think not. > The second testcase passed e.g. with 4.4, but fails already with 4.6, the > first > one regressed later with the SSA_NAME gimplification. Yeah, I think pre SSA_NAME gimplification we'd just generate wrong-code eventually and not notice.
