Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes: > On Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Marek Polacek wrote: > >> Back in April 2011, Richard S. submitted the implementation of >> internal functions [1]. It originally had this hunk of code: >> >> if (code == SSA_NAME >> && (g = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (ssa_name)) >> - && gimple_code (g) == GIMPLE_CALL) >> + && gimple_code (g) == GIMPLE_CALL >> + && !gimple_call_internal_p (g)) >> pmode = promote_function_mode (type, mode, &unsignedp, >> TREE_TYPE >> (TREE_TYPE (gimple_call_fn (g))), >> >> but the !gimple_call_internal_p (g) was turned into an assert. This patch >> turns the assert back into a condition. That's because I actually hit that >> assert with -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow on PPC64, where we expand >> internal >> calls at expand time. On PPC64, integers are promoted to long when passed to >> a function, that is why the assert doesn't trigger on x86_64. >> There shouldn't be any harm in not calling promote_function_mode since >> internal >> functions do not result in a call instruction. >> >> I'm not attaching any new testcase, because that's not needed - we ICE on >> PPC64 >> with current testsuite. >> >> Regtested/bootstrapped on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and >> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. >> Ok for trunk? > > Looks good to me - Richard?
Yeah, fine with me too. I suppose this wasn't ever likely to hit with the original ARM use. Thanks, Richard
