--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-18 15:13
---
Testing patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17656
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-18 17:39
---
Subject: Bug 17656
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-18 17:39:47
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa.c
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-18 18:05
---
Fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01502.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-18 00:09
---
*** Bug 18043 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 13:49
---
Andreas, yes please for PPC and/or x86.
It might be we are miscompiling GCC :(.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17656
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 15:28 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Andreas, yes please for PPC and/or x86.
It might be we are miscompiling GCC :(.
Here's the actual call on 32-bit ppc:
# gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I..
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 15:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=7325)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7325action=view)
Preprocessed file for Linux/PPC
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17656
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 15:47
---
Here's a reduced testcase that fails with -O on i686-pc-linux-gnu:
int sprintf (char *s, const char *format, ...);
int foo(int i, int j)
{
char *buf,
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 16:19
---
Eric, the regression appears with your patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-09/msg01039.html
Could you please have a look?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 17:43
---
This fixes the problem for me (basically what this patch does is gets rid of the check
for CALL_EXPR
because we do the fold later and it would not cause any other issue):
Diego, what do you think of this
--- Additional Comments From echristo at redhat dot com 2004-10-11 23:45 ---
Not a big fan of Andrew's patch. I don't think it will cover all the cases where
we have a problem. Basically, afaict, we're folding the toplevel call into
something else. In this case a builtin_memcpy to the
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17656
12 matches
Mail list logo
