This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: CALL_EXPR representation part 3/9 (middle-end stuff)
Sandra Loosemore wrote on 02/13/07 18:22:
Diego Novillo wrote:
Sandra Loosemore wrote on 02/12/07 14:20:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa.c
===================================================================
*** gcc/tree-ssa.c (revision 121705)
--- gcc/tree-ssa.c (working copy)
*************** tree_ssa_useless_type_conversion (tree e
*** 955,962 ****
|| TREE_CODE (expr) == VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR
|| TREE_CODE (expr) == NON_LVALUE_EXPR)
return tree_ssa_useless_type_conversion_1 (TREE_TYPE (expr),
! TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (expr,
! 0)));
return false;
--- 955,962 ----
|| TREE_CODE (expr) == VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR
|| TREE_CODE (expr) == NON_LVALUE_EXPR)
return tree_ssa_useless_type_conversion_1 (TREE_TYPE (expr),
! GENERIC_TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (expr,
! 0)));
Why GENERIC_TREE_TYPE here? You shouldn't be getting a gimple-stmt
here.
Maybe I shouldn't be getting one, but in fact I *did* run into an ICE
on this when I was testing this last week. :-) IIRC, it happened
when making java/lang/reflect/.libs/natMethod.o.
Something's not right. This should only trigger for expression codes
that should have a valid TREE_TYPE, so that TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0)
should most definitely have a non-NULL type. You may be papering over
some bug here.
I've spent several more hours looking at this issue, and I've become convinced
that your assertion that "You shouldn't be getting a gimple-stmt here" is incorrect.
Actually, you just proved me right :) The change *is* papering over a
bug, but this is a bug in the tuples transition that Roger's patch
should address.
See the thread starting with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00353.html. The folder
should not be generating the the G_M_S.
Since this is blocking your quite significant patch, and it is something
that we know how to fix, I don't have a problem with you committing your
fix. Could you add a FIXME note pointing to PR 30391 and adding a note
to that PR? Once that PR is fixed, this hunk should be reverted.
We've now fixed all the other items you noted in your review. My plan is to do
one more round of testing tonight, and resubmit the patch tomorrow.
Sure.
Thanks for your patience.