This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org 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]

[Bug c++/69851] [6 Regression] ICE: in assign_temp, at function.c:961


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Do we want a memcpy/memmove like assignment in this case, something else?
> 
> memcpy, yes.  Why isn't that the default for whole bytes in memory, anyway?

No idea.  I guess at least for GCC 6 it might be safest to just hack up
expand_assignment to expand TREE_ADDRESSABLE assignment that way (just ones
with weirdo sizes, which would otherwise go into store_field, or all?).

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