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: "bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 1 Mar 2004 15:20:43 -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 bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-01 15:20 -------
In response to Eric's comment #14: I think I may have been misunderstood.
I certainly didn't want to tread on anyone's toes with my comment, and
I also didn't change any priorities (but that comment wasn't obviously
meant for me anyway). I think what I wanted to say is that when we
reduce long testcases to small ones, we often end up with totally
nonsensical code that might well be undefined. If I can, I frequently
remove initialization code if it preserves the ICE, and I also usually
try to reduce most variables to integers, so that is where the dumbness
comes from. At the same time, the original testcase may well have been
totally meaningful and well-defined. My statement was just that looking
at a reduced testcase doesn't really give a good picture of whether we
have an ICE-on-well-defined or an ICE-on-undefined. This PR is actually
a good example, because the reporter came up with a perfectly valid testcase
after your comment, so the "dumbness" was introduced upon testcase reduction.
That being said: I'm sorry if I offended someone, I clearly am not :-)
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14235