Hi!
The MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR handling in *build_binary_op is minimal (especially
for C FE), because min/max aren't expressions the languages contain directly.
I'm using those for the
#pragma omp atomic
x = x < y ? y : x;
forms, but e.g. for the attached testcase we normally reject _Complex int vs.
int
comparisons, in C++ due to MIN/MAX_EXPR we were diagnosing it as invalid types
for <unknown> while in C we accept it and ICEd later on.
The following patch will try build_binary_op with LT_EXPR on the operands first
to get needed diagnostics and fail if it returns error_mark_node.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk.
2022-02-16 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR c/104531
* c-omp.cc (c_finish_omp_atomic): For MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR, try first
build_binary_op with LT_EXPR and only if that doesn't return
error_mark_node call build_modify_expr.
* c-c++-common/gomp/atomic-31.c: New test.
--- gcc/c-family/c-omp.cc.jj 2022-02-11 00:19:22.107067674 +0100
+++ gcc/c-family/c-omp.cc 2022-02-15 16:06:24.173311609 +0100
@@ -353,8 +353,13 @@ c_finish_omp_atomic (location_t loc, enu
}
bool save = in_late_binary_op;
in_late_binary_op = true;
- x = build_modify_expr (loc, blhs ? blhs : lhs, NULL_TREE, opcode,
- loc, rhs, NULL_TREE);
+ if ((opcode == MIN_EXPR || opcode == MAX_EXPR)
+ && build_binary_op (loc, LT_EXPR, blhs ? blhs : lhs, rhs,
+ true) == error_mark_node)
+ x = error_mark_node;
+ else
+ x = build_modify_expr (loc, blhs ? blhs : lhs, NULL_TREE, opcode,
+ loc, rhs, NULL_TREE);
in_late_binary_op = save;
if (x == error_mark_node)
return error_mark_node;
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/gomp/atomic-31.c.jj 2022-02-15
17:02:17.938486108 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/gomp/atomic-31.c 2022-02-15 17:04:23.811729201
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+/* c/104531 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+int x;
+
+void
+foo (_Complex int y)
+{
+ #pragma omp atomic compare /* { dg-error "invalid operands" } */
+ x = x > y ? y : x;
+}
Jakub
