On 01/02/2016 04:26 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 10:06:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* cp-array-notation.c (cp_expand_cond_array_notations): Return
error_mark_node only if find_rank failed, not if it was
successful.
Can you use -fdump-tree-original in the testcase and verify there's no <<<
error >>> expressions in the resulting dump file?
With that change, this is OK.
I think the patch is incomplete. Because, find_rank does not always emit
an error if it returns false, so we again have cases where we can get
error_mark_node in the code without error being emitted.
else if (*rank != current_rank)
{
/* In this case, find rank is being recursed through a set of
expression of the form A <OPERATION> B, where A and B both have
array notations in them and the rank of A is not equal to rank of
B.
A simple example of such case is the following: X[:] + Y[:][:] */
*rank = current_rank;
return false;
}
and other spots. E.g.
if (prev_arg && EXPR_HAS_LOCATION (prev_arg))
error_at (EXPR_LOCATION (prev_arg),
"rank mismatch between %qE and %qE", prev_arg,
TREE_OPERAND (expr, ii));
looks very suspicious.
Hmm, good point. Here's a contrived test case that causes find_rank to
return false without emitting an error message thus we again end up
with an error_mark_node in the gimplifier:
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-fcilkplus" } */
void foo() {}
#define ALEN 1024
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
typedef void (*f) (void *);
f b[ALEN], c[ALEN][ALEN];
(b[:]) ((void *)c[:][:]);
_Cilk_spawn foo();
return 0;
}
But this patch was intended to only fix the testsuite fallout that
patch 3 would have otherwise caused, and not to e.g. fix all the bugs
with find_rank.
(BTW patch 3 also makes this test case trigger an ICE, instead of
being silently miscompiled.)
Can you please include this test (xfailed) when you commit patch #1. I
think you want the test to scan for error_mark_node in the gimplified dump.
Jeff
