Summary: | [4.8 Regression]: g++.dg/other/vector-compare.C, ICE | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | gcc | Reporter: | Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp> |
Component: | regression | Assignee: | Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | ice-on-valid-code |
Priority: | P3 | ||
Version: | 4.8.0 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Host: | x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu | Target: | cris-axis-elf |
Build: | Known to work: | ||
Known to fail: | Last reconfirmed: | ||
Bug Depends on: | 55001 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Hans-Peter Nilsson
2012-11-01 18:46:50 UTC
Thanks. Since the error happens in expand, I assume this is a dup of PR 55001, for which I posted a patch earlier today. Note that AFAIK, anything that starts failing because of this patch was silently miscompiled before. (I am also investigating a different problem with this testcase, due to the fact that the C front-end turns (void)(x<0) into if(x<0)(void)0 which vector x doesn't like) (In reply to comment #1) > Since the error happens in expand, I assume this is a dup of PR 55001, for > which I posted a patch earlier today. It could be; that PR lacks a description of the effects, so my pre-report search did not find it. (It only speaks of something missing in the code, could be just a missing optimization at a glance.) I'll leave dealing with it to you. (In reply to comment #2) > It could be; that PR lacks a description of the effects, so my pre-report > search did not find it. (It only speaks of something missing in the code, > could be just a missing optimization at a glance.) Yes, sorry, "dup" probably wasn't the right term, I meant it as: "I think I know what's going on". Thanks again for filing the bug and CCing me. I made this PR depend on PR55001, which has a committed patch that solves the regression in this PR. So, looks like a dup, for some definition thereof. Thanks. The failure also disappeared between: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00087.html and: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00095.html so let's mark this bug as fixed. PR55001 remains open because the patch makes the compiler produce sub-optimal code (but correct at least). |