On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > This version is better, but if removing an EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR there
> > caused
> > problems, why is it OK to remove CONVERT_EXPR and NOP_EXPR like you still
> > do - won't that also cause type mismatches (at least if the conversions are
> > to
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:18 PM
> 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
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> 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
> -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
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
> > - an
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 10:40 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 Sun, 9
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Attached, please find a patch that will fix the bug reported in PR
> 57563. There are a couple issues that went wrong. First, in the test
> case, we have a double multiplied to a double. When -std=c99 flag is
> used, they get converted to long d
