This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix fold_indirect_ref
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>,Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 12:10:01 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: 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 <email@example.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> * 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.
> Please someone with more knowledge of the middle-end type system
> look at this and the related
which is now PR21545.
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>