> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Joseph S. Myers
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:16 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek; mpola...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix for PR c/57563
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>
> > > You don't say what the actual error was, and neither does the original PR.
> > > But if it was an ICE from an EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR getting to the
> > > gimplifier, that suggests that c_fully_fold isn't getting called
> > > somewhere it should be - and probably calling c_fully_fold is the
> > > correct fix rather than inserting a cast. If you can get such ICEs
> > > for EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR, it's quite possible you might get them
> > > for C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR as well (e.g. try using 0 / 0, or compound
> > > literals of variably modified type, in various places in the affected
> expressions), which should be fixed by using c_fully_fold but not by
> inserting a
> cast.
> >
> > It was not. It was actually a type mismatch between double and long
> > double caught in verify_gimple_in_seq function. So, is it OK for trunk?
>
> A cast still doesn't make sense conceptually. Could you give a more detailed
> analysis of what the trees look like at this point where you are inserting
> this cast,
> and how you get to a mismatch?
>
> EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR can be thought of as a conversion operator. It should
> only appear at the top level of an expression. At the point where excess
> precision should be removed - the value converted to its semantic type -
> either
> the expression with excess precision should be folded using c_fully_fold (if
> this is
> the expression of an expression statement, or otherwise will go inside a tree
> that c_fully_fold does not recurse inside), or the operand of the
> EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR should be converted to the semantic type with the
> "convert" function. In neither case is generating a cast appropriate; that's
> for
> when the user actually wrote a cast in their source code.
I looked into it a bit more detail. It was an error on my side. I was removing
the excess precision expr layer instead of fully folding it. I did that change
(i.e. fully fold the expression) and all the errors seem to go away. Here is
the fixed patch that fixes PR c/57563. It passes for 32 bit and 64 bit tests.
Here are the changelog entries:
gcc/c/ChangeLog
2013-06-10 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
* c-array-notation.c (fix_builtin_array_notation_fn): Fully folded
excessive precision expressions in function parameters.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2013-06-10 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
PR c/57563
* c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/builtin_fn_mutating.c (main): Fixed a bug
in how we check __sec_reduce_mutating function's result.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c b/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c
index b1040da..9298ae0 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c
@@ -158,10 +158,13 @@ fix_builtin_array_notation_fn (tree an_builtin_fn, tree
*new_var)
func_parm = CALL_EXPR_ARG (an_builtin_fn, 0);
while (TREE_CODE (func_parm) == CONVERT_EXPR
- || TREE_CODE (func_parm) == EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR
|| TREE_CODE (func_parm) == NOP_EXPR)
func_parm = TREE_OPERAND (func_parm, 0);
+ /* Fully fold any EXCESSIVE_PRECISION EXPR that can occur in the function
+ parameter. */
+ func_parm = c_fully_fold (func_parm, false, NULL);
+
location = EXPR_LOCATION (an_builtin_fn);
if (!find_rank (location, an_builtin_fn, an_builtin_fn, true, &rank))
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/builtin_fn_mutating.c
b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/builtin_fn_mutating.c
index 6635565..7c194c2 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/builtin_fn_mutating.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/builtin_fn_mutating.c
@@ -44,11 +44,11 @@ int main(void)
max_value = array3[0] * array4[0];
for (ii = 0; ii < 10; ii++)
if (array3[ii] * array4[ii] > max_value) {
- max_value = array3[ii] * array4[ii];
max_index = ii;
}
-
+ for (ii = 0; ii < 10; ii++)
+ my_func (&max_value, array3[ii] * array4[ii]);
#if HAVE_IO
for (ii = 0; ii < 10; ii++)
