This is the mail archive of the 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] convert MIN_EXPR operands to the same type (PR 87059)

On 08/27/2018 02:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 9:14 PM Jeff Law <> wrote:
>> On 08/24/2018 01:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> PR 87059 points out an ICE in the recently enhanced VRP code
>>> that was traced back to a MIN_EXPR built out of operands of
>>> types with different sign by expand_builtin_strncmp().
>>> The attached patch adjusts the function to make sure both
>>> operands have the same type, and to make these mismatches
>>> easier to detect, also adds an assertion to fold_binary_loc()
>>> for these expressions.
>>> Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux.
>>> Martin
>>> PS Aldy, I have not tested this on powerpc64le.
>>> gcc-87059.diff
>>> PR tree-optimization/87059 - internal compiler error: in set_value_range
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>       PR tree-optimization/87059
>>>       * builtins.c (expand_builtin_strncmp): Convert MIN_EXPR operand
>>>       to the same type as the other.
>>>       * fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): Assert expectation.
>> I bootstrapped (but did not regression test) this on ppc64le and also
>> built the linux kernel (which is where my tester tripped over this problem).
>> Approved and installed on the trunk.
> Please remove the assertion in fold_binary_loc again, we do not do this kind
> of assertions there.
I almost called out the assertion.  We generally verify this kind of
stuff in the verify_gimple routines and haphazard asserts in the folder
would be just that -- haphazard.

The value in Martin's assertion is to catch the goof earlier.  But I
won't lose sleep if we drop the assert.


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