On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I assume this is a size_t vs int type problem, but the diagnostic
>>> points to the function declaration, not to an actual binary
>>> expression, and I can't figure out what it's complaining about:
>>
>> My mailer uses proportional fonts so I can't make sense of the
>> diagnostics with the carets :-/
>>
>>>
>>> Note: my current patchset is:
>>>
>>> Index: libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset (revision 186562)
>>> +++ libstdc++-v3/include/std/bitset (working copy)
>>> @@ -1374,13 +1374,13 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
>>> void
>>> bitset<_Nb>::
>>> _M_copy_from_ptr(const _CharT* __s, size_t __len,
>>> size_t __pos, size_t __n, _CharT __zero, _CharT __one)
>>> {
>>> reset();
>>> - const size_t __nbits = std::min(_Nb, std::min(__n, __len - __pos));
>>> + const size_t __nbits = std::min(_Nb, std::min(__n, (size_t)(__len -
>>> __pos)));
>>
>> style nits: It should be size_t(__len - __pos), and not (size_t)(__len -
>> __pos).
>> Same for the other hunk. Patch OK with those changes.
>
> This looks like a middle-end ICE that is at most worked around by the above
> change. So I don't believe we should paper over it like this during stage1.
I do agree we should not be papering over bugs in the compiler at this stage.
On the other hand, std::min takes arguments of the same type; all the above is
doing is to make sure that we do call with size_t args. So, whether
the middle-end bug
is fixed or not, the change is still sound and good to apply.
-- Gaby
