[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-04 13:32 --- Mine. We'll stop the verifier from complaining. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2007-11-10 22:25:22 |2008-01-04 13:32:46 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-04 13:33 --- Which also means this is a checking-only ICE. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-checking http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-04 15:57 --- Subject: Bug 34029 Author: rguenth Date: Fri Jan 4 15:56:41 2008 New Revision: 131325 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131325 Log: 2008-01-04 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR middle-end/34029 * tree-cfg.c (verify_expr): Do not look inside ADDR_EXPRs for verifying purposes if they are is_gimple_min_invariant. * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr34029-1.c: New testcase. * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr34029-2.c: Likewise. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr34029-1.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr34029-2.c Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-cfg.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-04 15:59 --- Fixed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-03 16:23 ---
I will test the following
bool
is_gimple_min_invariant (const_tree t)
{
switch (TREE_CODE (t))
{
case ADDR_EXPR:
/* We do not allow arbitrary invariant expressions as gimple
such as a[1 - b], but only allow constant array indices
inside the otherwise TREE_INVARIANT expression. */
if (!TREE_INVARIANT (t))
return false;
t = TREE_OPERAND (t, 0);
while (handled_component_p (t))
{
if ((TREE_CODE (t) == ARRAY_REF
|| TREE_CODE (t) == ARRAY_RANGE_REF)
TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1)) != INTEGER_CST)
return false;
t = TREE_OPERAND (t, 0);
}
return true;
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-03 16:23 --- I don't have time to work on this any more. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu |org |dot org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-20 11:50 ---
While it would be nice if that got folded, I believe the problem is elsewhere.
Consider:
static const char s[] = ab.cd.efghijk;
static const char t[] = abcde;
long
foo (const char *x)
{
const char *a;
long b = 0;
a = __builtin_strchr (s, '.');
return ((long) a) + (1 - (long) t);
}
(ok, not really kosher code, because there are two unrelated pointers
involved).
This ICEs the same way, and really fold can't fold s[2] p+ (1 - (long int)
t[0]) to anything meaningful (well, perhaps it could avoid creating the
ADDR_EXPR.
The problem is IMHO in is_gimple_min_invariant blindly allowing any ADDR_EXPRs
with TREE_INVARIANT set, yet the checking code in verify_expr insists that also
TREE_OPERAND (addr_ref, 1) is is_gimple_val.
Either the checking code should be made less stricter and allow any
TREE_INVARIANT ADDR_EXPRs (likely very bad idea), or is_gimple_min_invariant
should enforce it:
case ADDR_EXPR:
return TREE_INVARIANT (t) is_gimple_val (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1));
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com,
||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Summary|internal compiler error:|[4.3 Regression] internal |verify_stmts failed |compiler error: verify_stmts ||failed Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
[Bug tree-optimization/34029] [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 20:27 ---
Slightly reduced:
static const char s[] = ab.cd.efghijk;
int
foo (const char *x)
{
const char *a;
int b = 0;
a = __builtin_strchr (s, '.');
if (a == 0)
b = 1;
else if ((a = __builtin_strchr (a + 1, '.')) == 0)
b = 1;
else if (__builtin_strncmp (s, x, a - s))
b = 1;
else if (__builtin_strncmp (a + 1, x + (a - s + 1), 4) 0)
b = 1;
if (b)
return 4;
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34029
