This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops
- From: "law at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 15 Nov 2004 17:01:58 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops
- References: <20041114150907.18478.kazu@cs.umass.edu>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2004-11-15 17:01 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE with
-funroll-loops
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 15:47 +0000, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-11-14 15:47 -------
> I am doing a binary search right now, but it's probably Jeff's patch that
> causes this bug.
>
> With his patch, GCC shares some CASE_LABEL_EXPR within one SWITCH_EXPR.
> When a basic block is copied, I don't think these shared CASE_LABEL_EXPR
> are properly updated. Specifically, it's possible that one CASE_LABEL_EXPR
> points to another CASE_LABEL_EXPR of another SWITCH_EXPR.
I'll take a look. It shouldn't be terribly hard to make sure the
right thing happens when we copy SWITCH_EXPRs.
[ This does make me wonder about any copying we do during inlining
as well. I'll look at that too. ]
jeff
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18478