Bug 28090 - incorrect implementation of expand_java_arraystore
Summary: incorrect implementation of expand_java_arraystore
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: java (show other bugs)
Version: 4.2.0
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: 4.3.0
Assignee: Tom Tromey
URL:
Keywords: wrong-code
Depends on: 19505
Blocks: 28067
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2006-06-19 23:07 UTC by Tom Tromey
Modified: 2007-01-09 20:37 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed: 2006-06-20 20:22:21

Attachments
proposed patch (645 bytes, patch)
2006-06-20 17:42 UTC, Tom Tromey 		Details | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tom Tromey 2006-06-19 23:07:11 UTC 
According to the ArrayStore.java test case, bounds checks should
take precedence over array store checks.  However, expand_java_arraystore
clearly does it in the wrong order:

  if (TREE_CODE (rhs_type_node) == POINTER_TYPE)
    {
      tree check = build_java_arraystore_check (array, rhs_node);
      java_add_stmt (check);
    }
  
  array = build_java_arrayaccess (array, rhs_type_node, index);
Comment 1 Andrew Pinski 2006-06-20 17:37:38 UTC 
Confirmed.
Comment 2 Tom Tromey 2006-06-20 17:42:48 UTC 
Created attachment 11712 [details]
proposed patch

I've attached a proposed patch.
However, when I use this patch I run into PR 19505.
Comment 3 Tom Tromey 2006-07-18 15:12:53 UTC 
FWIW compiling from bytecode on svn head fails as well.
In fact the test case is xfailed in this case.
So this doesn't appear to be a regression.

Also I think this patch is bogus (but at least it shows the
right place to add the fix).
Comment 4 Paolo Bonzini 2006-09-13 10:10:40 UTC 
PR19505 is fixed, is the patch still bad?
Comment 5 Andrew Haley 2006-12-21 15:09:19 UTC 
I fixed PR19505 in July.  Should not this patch go in?

This is the last bug blocking 28067...
Comment 6 Tom Tromey 2007-01-09 20:37:50 UTC 
Andrew's fix for this went in with the merge.