This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug optimization/14235] [3.4/3.5 Regression] ICE in verify_local_live_at start (flow.c:546)
- From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 1 Mar 2004 08:10:12 -0000
- Subject: [Bug optimization/14235] [3.4/3.5 Regression] ICE in verify_local_live_at start (flow.c:546)
- References: <20040221043216.14235.senor_fjord@yahoo.com>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-03-01 08:10 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 Regression] ICE in verify_local_live_at start (flow.c:546)
"ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| ------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-01 07:53 -------
| > | I'll not use the same wording the next time I lower a priority. But,
| > | frankly, when you see
| > |
| > | long long a;
| > |
| > | scanf("%d",a);
| > |
| > | if (!a) {
| > |
| > | you sometimes can't help doing so.
| >
| > Not if you tried initialization to see whether that it where it comes
| > from. It is fair to assume that GCC developers (including the bug
| > masters!) know GCC is a labyrinth; keeping lecturing people on that
| > does not help either.
|
| Sorry, but I fail to see what you mean in the first sentence (not because of the
| typo). As for the second sentence, well, maybe; but keeping overreacting does
| not help either :-)
That is exactly I phrased in a more polite way above.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14235