This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix fold_indirect_ref


On Fri, 13 May 2005, Richard Guenther wrote:

> On Thu, 12 May 2005, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > 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  <rguenth@gcc.gnu.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).
>
> I'll revert the patch on the 4.0 branch.

Done.

> Please someone with more knowledge of the middle-end type system
> look at this and the related
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00521.html

which is now PR21545.

Richard.

--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]