This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix fold_indirect_ref
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:20:08PM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 15:10 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On May 12, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:40:32PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > >> 2005-04-28 Richard Guenther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >>
> > >> * fold-const.c (fold_indirect_ref_1): Avoid removing
> > >> NOP_EXPRs with type qualifiers like const.
> > >
> > > This patch causes a regression on gcc-4_0-branch in g++.dg/opt/temp1.C,
> > > which is now miscompiled on at least i386/x86_64/ppc/ppc64/ia64.
> > > Can you please look into it or revert?
> > God I how I hate GCC's type system.
> Something doesn't make any sense here -- Richard's change merely reduces
> the number of NOP_EXPRs that are stripped. If it's causing a regression
> then it must be exposing some kind of latent bug elsewhere.
Sure, I just think that such patches shouldn't be present on the release
branches until the latent bugs are resolved on the mainline
(FYI g++.dg/opt/temp1.C fails on mainline too).