This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/38590] [4.4 Regression] ice: verify_gimple failed
- From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:13:34 -0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/38590] [4.4 Regression] ice: verify_gimple failed
- References: <bug-38590-12544@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-21 19:13 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> It is caused by revision 133479:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg01393.html
Not really caused, just exposed, in fact it was caused by:
r107575 | pinskia | 2005-11-27 16:31:36 -0500 (Sun, 27 Nov 2005) | 13 lines
2005-11-27 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
PR middle-end/24575
* fold-const.c (negate_expr_p): Add case for signed divides if overflow
is undefined.
(negate_expr): Likewise.
2005-11-27 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
PR middle-end/24575
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/divide-3.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/divide-4.c: New test.
:)
Yes it is my bug. See sometimes pointing out the patch which exposes the ICE
is not always correct as you need to look into what the patch is doing. The
patch which HJL pointed out is just the patch which enables the checking and
not the patch which enabled the optimization in the first place.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38590