On 05/31/2013 12:01 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org
[mailto:gcc-patches- ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law Sent:
Friday, May 31, 2013 11:50 AM To: Iyer, Balaji V Cc:
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457
On 05/31/2013 07:54 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Everyone, This patch will fix a bug reported in PR57457.
One of the array notation
function was not checking for NULL_TREE before accessing its
fields. This patch should fix that issue. A test case is also
added.
Is this OK for trunk?
Here are the ChangeLog Entries:
gcc/c/ChangeLog 2013-05-31 Balaji V. Iyer
<balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
* c-array-notation.c (is_cilkplus_reduce_builtin): Added a check
for NULL_TREE parameter input.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog 2013-05-31 Balaji V. Iyer
<balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
PR c/57457 * c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/pr57457.c: New testcase.
So what you need to do is explain how you got into this function
with a NULL fndecl and why that's OK.
Hi Jeff, I looked into it, and there is another function call called
inform_declaration, and that does exactly what I did (i.e. check for
NULL fundecl before accessing its fields). From what I can tell,
fundecl will be NULL_TREE if a function declaration is a function
pointer.
The problematical calls are coming from convert_arguments which is a bit
inconsistent in how it handles a null FUNDECL. In some places it checks
it direction in convert_arguments and avoids certain actions. In other
places the callee checks.
The code looks like it's screaming to be simplified. Neither
flag_cilkplus nor FUNDECL change inside the main loop in
convert_arguments, so the first thing I'd ponder is pulling that
condition out of the loop. And after doing that we a similar condition
being used to suppress warnings just after the loop. I wonder if we
could have something like
if (flag_enable_cilkplus
&& fundecl
&& is_cilkplus_reduction_builtin (fundecl))
return vec_safe_length (values);
before the loop, then eliminate the the test inside the loop and just
after the loop.
That simplifies the code a bit and should fix this problem unless I'm
missing something?
jeff
