Bug 17757 - [4.0 Regression] emptyif.f90
Summary: [4.0 Regression] emptyif.f90
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: tree-optimization (show other bugs)
Version: 4.0.0
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: 4.0.0
Assignee: Andrew Pinski
URL:
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, patch
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-09-30 19:48 UTC by David Edelsohn
Modified: 2004-10-27 17:22 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed: 2004-09-30 20:39:01

Attachments
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 David Edelsohn 2004-09-30 19:48:03 UTC 
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/emptyif.f90
-O1/-O2/-O3/-Os

powerpc-ibm-aix5.2.0.0 error message:

internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional'
(error_mark) in operand_equal_p, at fold-const.c:2337

Introduced 20040922:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2004-09/msg00178.html
Comment 1 Andrew Pinski 2004-09-30 20:29:17 UTC 
I will look into this later.
Comment 2 Andrew Pinski 2004-09-30 20:39:01 UTC 
Confirmed, the SSA_NAME's type is NULL I don't know why, there is another bug like this.
Comment 3 Andrew Pinski 2004-09-30 20:50:51 UTC 
Here is a C example which shows that this is a regression:
void abort1(void);
int main()
{
  int i;
  i = 1;
  if (i > 0)
   i = 2;
  if (i != 2)  abort1();
  if (i==0);
  else if (i == 2)
   i = 3;
  if (i != 3) abort1();
}

: Search converges between 2004-09-22-014001-trunk (#554) and 2004-09-22-161001-trunk 
(#555).
Comment 4 Andrew Pinski 2004-10-01 18:08:11 UTC 
Okay I think I know what is going on with this one and PR 17635, they are both related to the same 
bug.
Comment 5 Andrew Pinski 2004-10-01 18:21:59 UTC 
Patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg00072.html>.
Comment 6 Andrew Pinski 2004-10-02 00:00:45 UTC 
My Fix is not right at all, DOM is the problem here.
Comment 7 Andrew Pinski 2004-10-18 22:12:41 UTC 
Patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01546.html> which fixes it.
Comment 8 Andrew Pinski 2004-10-18 22:51:04 UTC 
Steven asked me to take care about the patch.
Comment 9 Steven Bosscher 2004-10-27 17:22:38 UTC 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg02358.html