[Bug c++/101443] [9/10/11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1519
cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Thu Jul 15 16:54:01 GMT 2021
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101443
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7094a69bd62a14dfa311eaa2fea468f221c7c9f3
commit r12-2331-g7094a69bd62a14dfa311eaa2fea468f221c7c9f3
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Thu Jul 15 18:53:20 2021 +0200
c++: Optimize away NULLPTR_TYPE comparisons [PR101443]
Comparisons of NULLPTR_TYPE operands cause all kinds of problems in the
middle-end and in fold-const.c, various optimizations assume that if they
see e.g. a non-equality comparison with one of the operands being
INTEGER_CST and it is not INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (which has TYPE_{MIN,MAX}_VALUE),
they can build_int_cst (type, 1) to find a successor.
The following patch fixes it by making sure they don't appear in the IL,
optimize them away at cp_fold time as all can be folded.
Though, I've just noticed that clang++ rejects the non-equality comparisons
instead, foo () > 0 with
invalid operands to binary expression ('decltype(nullptr)' (aka
'nullptr_t') and 'int')
and foo () > nullptr with
invalid operands to binary expression ('decltype(nullptr)' (aka
'nullptr_t') and 'nullptr_t')
Shall we reject those too, in addition or instead of parts of this patch?
If so, wouldn't this patch be still useful for backports, I bet we don't
want to start reject it on the release branches when we used to accept it.
2021-07-15 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR c++/101443
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): For comparisons with NULLPTR_TYPE
operands, fold them right away to true or false.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/nullptr46.C: New test.
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list