This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Fix for crash in compute_antic
- From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:08:06 -0500
- Subject: Re: RFC: Fix for crash in compute_antic
- References: <20081219050211.562284C1C098@zelda.codesourcery.com> <de8d50360812311323g6195cf5m883a685bb6a53e75@mail.gmail.com> <de8d50360812311326k37a63b76k9629eece8266c553@mail.gmail.com> <495BF4EE.3040207@codesourcery.com> <84fc9c000901010308t2f128bd9g16ee317e1b633eb8@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> This patch fixes a crash in compute_antic.
>>
>>>> This fixes part of PR 33649.
>>> In fact it fixes all of them.
>>
>> That's good to know. I still don't think this is a regression, though;
>> as far as I know, the test-case would fail on that combination of
>> options since the introduction of the options. So I think it would be
>> ill-mannered to check it in at this point. But, if someone can find a
>> regression in here, it's a straightforward patch.
>>
>> I couldn't figure out, when looking at the test case, why it didn't
>> occur without disabling things. It looked like the problematic code
>> would still get run. Are we just getting lucky?
>
> I guess we're just getting lucky. I think the patch should be applied
> at this stage,
> it's certainly obvious.
>
I agree.
This is clearly broken, and there is roughly no risk to your patch.
There is no case we would do the right thing before and won't do the
right thing after your patch :)