Hi, On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:38:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 23 May 2013, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > > > earlier this week I asked on IRC whether we could have non-top-level > > > BIT_FIELD_REFs and Richi said that we could. However, when I later > > > looked at SRA code, quite apparently it is not designed to handle > > > non-top-level BIT_FIELD_REFs, IMAGPART_EXPRs or REALPART_EXPRs. So in > > > order to test whether that assumption is OK, I added the following > > > into the gimple verifier and ran bootstrap and testsuite of all > > > languages including Ada and ObjC++ on x86_64. It survived, which > > > makes me wondering whether we do not want it in trunk. > > > > This looks plausible to me, but I think that you ought to verify the real > > assumption instead, which is that the type of the 3 nodes is always scalar. > > The non-toplevelness of the nodes is merely a consequence of this property. > > Yeah. But please put the verification into tree-cfg.c:verify_expr > instead. >
Like this? Also bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux. Thanks, Martin 2013-05-23 Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> * tree-cfg.c (verify_expr): Verify that BIT_FIELD_REFs, IMAGPART_EXPRs and REALPART_EXPRs have scalar type. Index: src/gcc/tree-cfg.c =================================================================== --- src.orig/gcc/tree-cfg.c +++ src/gcc/tree-cfg.c @@ -2669,10 +2669,17 @@ verify_expr (tree *tp, int *walk_subtree case REALPART_EXPR: case IMAGPART_EXPR: + case BIT_FIELD_REF: + if (!is_gimple_reg_type (TREE_TYPE (t))) + { + error ("non-scalar BIT_FIELD_REF, IMAGPART_EXPR or REALPART_EXPR"); + return t; + } + + /* Fall-through. */ case COMPONENT_REF: case ARRAY_REF: case ARRAY_RANGE_REF: - case BIT_FIELD_REF: case VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR: /* We have a nest of references. Verify that each of the operands that determine where to reference is either a constant or a variable,