This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] PR17913:[4.0 Regression] ICE jumping into statementexpression


On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> Ouch.  Think about an extremely simplistic stack-based code generator, and
> feed it

With tree-ssa we should no longer have such problems arising from jumping 
into pushing function arguments (etc.).

> From some experiments, gcc manages to cope with this even with very complex
> nested expressions, but making labels local would make a lot of sense.  I
> second your opinion and suggest marking as ice-on-invalid, closing as WONTFIX,
> and opening another accepts-invalid PR.

An ICE is a bug, whether the code is valid or invalid.  Marking unfixed 
bugs that apply to current mainline WONTFIX is not appropriate.  (WONTFIX 
makes sense for bugs fixed in mainline for which a fix won't be backported 
but a separate bug requests a backport, or for bugs in targets or options 
that *have been* (not will be) removed.  But if program X with options Y 
gives an ICE, this is a genuine bug as long as options Y are accepted, and 
should not be marked WONTFIX.

As I explained, making labels local leads to other problems and is not a 
complete fix.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]