This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/21610] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl
- From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 16 May 2005 20:01:16 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/21610] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl
- References: <20050516184442.21610.jakub@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-16 20:01 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in
make_decl_rtl
On Mon, 16 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Hmm, shouldn't we unshare the tree when copy the value of p in? (oh that is what your patch does).
> I wonder if we can just get rid of decl_constant_value_for_broken_optimization/decl_constant_value.
If you get rid of decl_constant_value_for_broken_optimization then I
suspect you'll lose some optimizations because fold doesn't operate on SSA
so some constant values won't be available to fold, only to later
optimizations. But you'll get rid of the only references to "optimize" in
the C front end other than those defining built-in macros, and the
front-end shouldn't care about "optimize" in principle, and you'll
probably get rid of some XFAILs in c9?-const-expr-?.c in the process.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21610