This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE in predicate_mem_writes (PR tree-optimization/70725)
- From: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:57:20 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE in predicate_mem_writes (PR tree-optimization/70725)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160419183549 dot GN28445 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc0rjGa2nR6M7kYyL0e_JUbM8w6HAGSRpHrW1i8H=8T_kw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160420094246 dot GO28445 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc12q3vzQ8+RZdo7rFWHso4Y_-YJvxDiTF9Jj45vtBPN4Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:47:07AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:04:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > While predicate_mem_writes has a check to skip conditions that were evaluated
> >> > to true, it's lacking the same check for false, so we hit an assert later on.
> >> > So I'm adding is_false_predicate. Maybe it should be added to other spots as
> >> > well, but I'm not sure about that.
> >> >
> >> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >
> > Thanks, should I backport this to gcc-6-branch now? Or wait until after 6.1?
>
> It's fine to backport now as it's probably a regression.
Yes, it is (gcc5 worked). Will backport now then.
Marek