SRA and inconsistencies in bit-field types
Alexandre Oliva
aoliva@redhat.com
Sat Feb 17 09:58:00 GMT 2007
On Feb 16, 2007, Grigory Zagorodnev <grigory_zagorodnev@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>>> How about enclosing the gcc_assert in #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING in the
>>>> 4.1 and 4.2 branches? (I'm going to test the 4.2 branch now)
>>
>>> That's also fine.
>>
>> 4.2 testing completed, so this is what I've installed in the branches
>> (4.1 and 4.2, respectively):
> Alexandre,
> it appears that this patch caused cpu2006/povray compilation failure.
As it turns out, the absence of TYPE_CANONICAL in older branches
wasn't that easy to overcome. I could have done it (there's code
elsewhere that performs similar type checks), but I didn't think it
was worth it. The assertion was intended to detect inconsistencies
that were already present before anyway, so it's not like we lose
anything taking it out.
Here's what I've installed the following patches in 4.2 and 4.1,
respectively, to fix this problem. Sorry that my testing didn't catch
it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gcc-bz223576-noassert.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 724 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20070217/56b18535/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gcc-bz223576-noassert.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 723 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20070217/56b18535/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list