[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Comment #39 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 10:41 --- Fixed in 4.0.0 and higher. Won't fix for 3.4.x -- gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Comment #38 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 05:16 --- > Eric, do you still consider this problem important to be solved for 3.4.x? As the saying goes in French: "ne soyons pas plus royaliste que le roi". The C++ maintainers apparenty don't care much, then neither

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Comment #37 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 02:21 --- (In reply to comment #36) > New patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg00864.html > Eric, do you still consider this problem important to be solved for 3.4.x? Do you have a new version of your proposed

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17972

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

-- What|Removed |Added CC||jason at redhat dot com AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10 08:04 --- New patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg00864.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17972

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-07 09:54 --- An interesting thing in the head comment of unsafe_for_reeval in 3.4.x: This assumes that CALL_EXPRs and TARGET_EXPRs are never replicated in an expression tree, so that it safe to unsave them and t

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 22:02 --- > There are other places where TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS matters. (Like, "do we > have to emit this expression at all, if its result is not used?") OK. > The counter to your argument is that I don't see why th

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-03 21:19 --- Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 > 21:12 ---

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 21:12 --- > I don't think I'd try to be that clever. We might want the > stabilization to occur even in other cases. In looking at it more > closely, it definitely looks like stabilize_reference should deal with

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-03 19:34 --- Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 > 19:25 ---

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 19:25 --- > It really seems like the C++ front end is doing the right thing, > abstractly -- these functions don't have side-effects! So, either the > inliner or stabilize reference seems like it needs fixing. M

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-03 18:47 --- Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > 2. The tree-inliner inlines the call. Since the same tree is referenced twice > in the expres

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-24 16:49 --- Hum... again a consequence of the C++ front-end not setting TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS on every CALL_EXPR, like the C front-end. The sequence of events is as follows: 1. fn1()->s -= 1 is expanded to the 3-operand

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-24 15:59 --- > New test case exhibits same problem. Confirmed. Reduced testcase: struct demo { int s; }; extern struct demo * const *xd; static inline struct demo *fn1(void) __attribute__((pure)); static inlin

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From mostrows at watson dot ibm dot com 2005-02-24 14:18 --- New test case exhibits same problem. struct demo { int s; }; extern struct demo * const *xd; static inline struct demo *fn1(void) __attribute__((pure)); static inline struct demo *fn1(void) { stru

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15 19:19 --- Patch applied. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RES

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15 19:18 --- Subject: Bug 17972 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_4-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-15 19:17:57 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15 19:15 --- Subject: Bug 17972 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-15 19:14:55 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-inline.c gcc/

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10 03:28 --- Patch here: . -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07 08:30 --- Investigating. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebo

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07 08:01 --- > I checked again with a current x86 gcc, 3.4.4 20041206, and the problem is > still there. Note that this only happens with cc1plus. Sorry, you're right, I was able to reproduce on i586-redhat-linux-gnu

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2004-12-06 23:31 --- I checked again with a current x86 gcc, 3.4.4 20041206, and the problem is still there. Note that this only happens with cc1plus. As to why we get the "impossible" assembly, what happens is that the inli

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-06 17:15 --- Alan, unless I'm mistaken, the testcase you filed doesn't fail on x86. Moreover, the assembly code you posted contains an infinite loop that can't reasonably come from the code. -- What|

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-01 00:45 --- Postponed until GCC 3.4.4. -- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.4.3

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2004-10-16 10:58 --- Michal's reduced testcase, in comment #5, fails on powerpc-linux too. expand_increment is expanding the inline function body twice, at line 9261 op0 = expand_expr (incremented, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, 0); an

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

-- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical Known to fail||3.4.0 Known to work|

[Bug c++/17972] [3.4 Regression] const/pure functions result in bad asm

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 23:12 --- Never mind you are right Alan, I do need to use cc1plus but why. The RTL is wrong already at .01.rtl. So this is 3.4 regression (it might be a 3.3 regression also I don't know). But this was fixed on the