This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ICE on i386
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>,Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:34:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: ICE on i386
- Organization: Home
- References: <hoof9xqcmy.fsf@gee.suse.de> <016e01c27c77$fff51740$ce4f24d5@fr> <20021029141842.GB1658@redhat.com>
> Applied.
Thanks. For the sake of completeness, bootstrapped and regtested
(c,c++,objc,f77) on i586-redhat-linux-gnu.
It fixes PR optimization/8334. I've attached a patch against ChangeLog to
record that and the unavoidable testcase.
--
Eric Botcazou
--- gcc/ChangeLog.orig Wed Oct 30 08:28:08 2002
+++ gcc/ChangeLog Wed Oct 30 08:28:28 2002
@@ -61,8 +61,9 @@
2002-10-29 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
- * expr.c (expand_expr) [PLUS]: Don't use simplify_binary_operation;
- check for zero operands explicitly.
+ PR optimization/8334
+ * expr.c (expand_expr) [PLUS]: Don't use simplify_binary_operation;
+ check for zero operands explicitly.
2002-10-29 Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@redhat.com>
/* PR optimization/8334 */
/* Verify that GCC produces valid operands
after simplifying an addition. */
void foo(int m, int n, double *f)
{
int i, j, k = 1;
for (j = 0; j < n; j++) {
for (i = k; i < m; i++) {
f[i] = (double) (i * j);
f[i + j] = (double) ((i + 1) * j);
}
}
}