This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gimplify_parameters
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: rth at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 04 22:12:05 EST
- Subject: Re: gimplify_parameters
Yes, but I can't see why you think this is a Real Bug rather than
a possible inefficiency.
Because the call to gimplify_type_sizes will leave junk around that
the next one will pick up, improperly. See my message that went by while
you were writing this.
I do see an ICE here, due to SRA exposing a new variable in the nested
function that hadn't been seen previously, and thus tree-nested.c wasn't
given a chance to mutate it properly. Which *is* a bug.
What an interesting test case! It was written to show one bug. So far
it hasn't shown that one, but found two others ...