https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #30)
> On IRC someone pointed to a new variant (huge Boost testcase):
That looks unrelated to this PR, it is not about missing lhs in a call that
returns non-PO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||compnerd at compnerd dot org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 12 11:59:00 2016
New Revision: 233375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/69241
* ipa-split.c (split_function): If split par
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37654&action=edit
gcc6-pr69241.patch
Well, we shouldn't ICE even on questionable testcases where -Wreturn-type
complains on them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #25 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24)
> The #c1 testcase doesn't bother to return a value from the function, does
> Chromium has similar garbage in it?
Actually, the chromium file, from which t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c1 testcase doesn't bother to return a value from the function, does
Chromium has similar garbage in it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 10 15:06:20 2016
New Revision: 233271
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233271&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/69241
PR c++/69649
* gimplify.c (gimplify_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, as for whether versioning supports changing return type to void, clearly it
supports it and even fnsplit uses it for the !split_part_return_p.
So perhaps:
--- ipa-split.c.jj1 2016-01-04 14:55:52.00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> > Created attachment 37565 [details]
> > gcc6-pr69241.patch
> >
> > So, it seems we have at least 3 differ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Here is Jakub's testcase. It it shorter and nicer than that from comment1.
struct A { virtual void m1 (); };
struct C : A { void m1 () { m1 (); } };
template struct B
{
T *t;
B (T *x) : t (x) { i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #17 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> Created attachment 37565 [details]
> gcc6-pr69241.patch
>
> So, it seems we have at least 3 different issues, the attached patch fixes
> two of them, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37565
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37565&action=edit
gcc6-pr69241.patch
So, it seems we have at least 3 different issues, the attached patch fixes two
of them, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 69649 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
*** Bug 69649 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #12)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #11)
> > More reduced test case, that does not depend on -ipa-icf:
> >
> > struct R
> > {
> > R (const R&) { }
> > };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #11)
> More reduced test case, that does not depend on -ipa-icf:
>
> struct R
> {
> R (const R&) { }
> };
>
> __attribute__ ((noreturn)) R f ();
>
> R
> c ()
> {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #10 from Abe ---
Adding either of the following flags to "-O1" causes the compiler to ICE on the
most-reduced test case; adding any of the other "-f<...>" flags I tested [39 of
them including the following 2] did not enable the ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #9 from Abe ---
Further-reduced test case [13 bytes shorter: 76 bytes with 1-byte line
endings]...
[[noreturn]]void V(int);
struct R{R(const R&){}};
R f(){V(0);}
R c(){V(0);}
Additional notes:
* removing "__attribute__((noret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #8 from Abe ---
Slightly more reduced [2 bytes less? ;-)]...
__attribute__((noreturn))void V(int);
struct R{R(const R&){}};
R f(){V(0);}
R c(){V(0);}
This might be the most-reduced-possible form of this test case.
Experimentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|[6
26 matches
Mail list logo
