https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117249
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11) > Created attachment 59416 [details] > gcc15-pr117249-2.patch > > Untested patch to change the gcc_assert definition. Unfortunately this doesn't work, there are various places which use gcc_assert inside of comma expressions. So, I think I'll just use statement expression around it and add GCC_VERSION >= 2007. (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #12) > On IRC Jakub mentioned gcc_assert (token() == TYPEDEF) in gengtype and Richi > further noted > > config/ia64/ia64.cc:gcc_assert ((code = recog_memoized (insn)) == > CODE_FOR_nop I'm not convinced we need to change this one, yes, it has side-effects, but I think the code doesn't really care if that wouldn't happen. > df-scan.cc:gcc_assert (df_reg_chain_mark (DF_REG_DEF_CHAIN (i), i, true, > false) And neither this. First of all, one could get here only in --disable-checking build with explicit -fchecking, and I think nothing really cares if the side-effects don't happen, this is just df verification which just attempts to verify whether what df normally computed matches what would be computed from scratch.
