This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE in common_type (PR c/19342)
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:31:52 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE in common_type (PR c/19342)
- References: <20050119120743.GU10340@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Ok to commit? The testcase from c/19342 now works as well as the testcase
> below, but the latter only at -O0, as I have extended a testcase and
> apparently discovered further (likely unrelated) 2 bugs.
> Or should I commit just the c-typeck.c change and a testcase that ICEd,
> but now 100% works and create new PR for the new testcase that still ICEs
> on different places?
The patch is OK with a testcase that ICEd but now passes. Please create a
new PR or PRs for the other bugs, marked as regressions if appropriate, if
they aren't already fixed.
> + struct S s[2];
> + s[2].d = A;
The execution tests shouldn't involve this out of bounds access, I suppose
you meant s[1].d. (Of course it's OK for an ICE test to make sure that
such an out of bounds access compiles without ICE, just not for it to be
on an executed path in an execution test.)
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)