[Bug tree-optimization/34005] [4.3 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (expected an SSA_NAME object)
rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Wed Nov 28 13:45:00 GMT 2007
------- Comment #13 from rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2007-11-28 13:45 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (expected an SSA_NAME
object)
> ------- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-28 13:20 -------
> So, shouldn't the expression_without_side_effects_p routine just be renamed
> to expression_could_trap_p, otherwise it will be confused again and again with
> !TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS on the expr? The gimplify_cond_expr new hunk then could be
> + if (gimplify_ctxp->allow_rhs_cond_expr
> + /* If either branch has side effects or could trap, it can't be
> + evaluated unconditionally. */
> + && !TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 1))
> + && !expression_could_trap_p (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 1))
> + && !TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 2))
> + && !expression_could_trap_p (TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 2)))
> + return gimplify_pure_cond_expr (expr_p, pre_p);
>
> This would allow side effects on condition of the COND_EXPR, and at least to me
> would be less confusing (and given that Diego raised that question first, I'm
> probably not alone).
that would be fine with me (it would be safer than changing the
semantics of TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS). I guess it is up to Diego,
I am willing to do it either way.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34005
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list