This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Segfault in rtx_varies_p
Paul Brook wrote:
(insn (set (reg 103) (mem (plus (reg 101) (reg 102))))This last REG_EQUAL note doesn't look right to me.
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (plus (reg 101) (symbol_ref "bar")))
It references "bar", rather than "digs". Why is that?
A typo, it should be "digs".
You should check that rtx_varies_p still returns true for the larger
expression containing the NULL rtx; the (use mem:blk scratch) should
cause us to believe that the entire expression is variable.
In that case, I think your patch is fine for mainline and csl-arm-branch.
For 3.4, we should show that it really is a regression. We're taking a
risk that we're somehow changing an ICE into wrong-code, and that would