On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > ? ? ?tem = fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type,
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fold_convert_loc (loc, TREE_TYPE (op0),
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)),
>> > op1);
>> > ? ? ?protected_set_expr_location (tem, loc);
>> >
>> > When --enable-checking=fold, fold verifies that none of the arguments
>> > changed, which in this case it obviously does.
>> >
>> > Would be ok to allow a TREE_EXP's location to change within fold? ?That is,
>> > add locus (for TREE_EXP's) to the list of allowed changeable fields in
>> > fold_checksum_tree()?
>>
>> Why? It looks like the above should already take care of the
>> correct location via passing loc to fold_build2_loc.
>
> The correct location is being passed. The problem is that in the
> testcase in question, we modify the original statement (with the new
> locus). Modifying the original statement is a no no in
> fold_checksum_tree.
That wasn't my question.
tem = fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type,
fold_convert_loc (loc, TREE_TYPE (op0),
TREE_OPERAND (arg0, 1)), op1);
protected_set_expr_location (tem, loc);
here tem is built by calling fold_build2_loc. So why is the location
of tem not loc after that. This sounds like the actual bug
(and the protected_set_expr_location should be redundant).
Richard.
