This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, PR60469, Cilk+] Fix ICE of using Cilk_spawn and Array Notation together
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: "Zamyatin, Igor" <igor dot zamyatin at intel dot com>
- Cc: "GCC Patches (gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org)" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>, "Stupachenko, Evgeny V" <evgeny dot v dot stupachenko at intel dot com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:28:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR60469, Cilk+] Fix ICE of using Cilk_spawn and Array Notation together
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D7569429DCBE0 at IRSMSX103 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 05:19:33PM +0000, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
> @@ -282,8 +283,7 @@ fix_builtin_array_notation_fn (tree an_builtin_fn, tree *new_var)
>
> for (ii = 0; ii < rank; ii++)
> {
> - an_loop_info[ii].var = build_decl (location, VAR_DECL, NULL_TREE,
> - integer_type_node);
> + an_loop_info[ii].var = create_tmp_var(integer_type_node, NULL);
Please fix up formatting (space before left paren), many times
in the patch.
Ok with those changes.
Looking at it, I'd question if integer_type_node is the right type for the
iterators, I'd say signed_size_type_node or something similar shouldn't be
used instead, otherwise I'm afraid if you have array notations for >= 2GB
arrays on 64-bit targets it might misbehave.
But that is definitely something for stage1, not 4.9 right now.
Jakub