This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Don't return but abort() in tree-ssa-ccp on non-GIMPLE with checking enabled
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:03:05 -0600
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Don't return but abort() in tree-ssa-ccp on non-GIMPLE with checking enabled
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <3EECF3A6.4060406@student.tudelft.nl>, Steven Bosscher writes:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------010002090904000804070908
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>We should never ever see non-GIMPLE at this point, so the return truely
>is lame. But what's worse
>is that this is the kind of thing that causes bugs that disappear with
>checking enabled but cause ICEs
>with checking disabled. Shouldn't _all_ checks in #if ENABLE_CHECKING
>abort if they fail?
>
>Bootstrapped C/C++ on i686-pc-cygwin. Not really obvious because I
>don't know the history of
>this check, so... OK?
Err, what about an ASM operand or a backend builtin? I believe we have
those marked as non-gimple right now. Have you checked those explicitly?
jeff