--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-23 21:38
---
Fixed by: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=126857
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from rosana07a at gmail dot com 2007-07-22 20:09 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-operands int.comp error
>
> I already submitted a patch for this (see my followup to HP that fixes
> valid_gimple_expression_p).
> As soon as i can bo
--- Comment #10 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-22 15:42
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-operands int.comp error
I already submitted a patch for this (see my followup to HP that fixes
valid_gimple_expression_p).
As soon as i can bootstrap on darwin, i will commi
I already submitted a patch for this (see my followup to HP that fixes
valid_gimple_expression_p).
As soon as i can bootstrap on darwin, i will commit it.
If someone wants to do so before me, all you need to do is change
is_gimple_addressable to is_gimple_id in valid_gimple_expression_p
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-22 09:04 ---
*** Bug 32850 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-22 09:03 ---
Reopen this one.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-22 07:34 ---
PR 32850 has the revision # which causes this regression.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 32850 ***
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-22 02:19 ---
*** Bug 32848 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-14 02:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-operands int.comp error
valid_gimple_expression_p claims
&((struct RegisterLayout *) (char *) &SimulatedRegisters)->intmask;
is valid GIMPLE, when it is not.
On 13 Jul 200
valid_gimple_expression_p claims
&((struct RegisterLayout *) (char *) &SimulatedRegisters)->intmask;
is valid GIMPLE, when it is not.
On 13 Jul 2007 23:37:00 -, hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 23:36 -
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 23:36 ---
Also happens for cris-axis-elf and likely other 32-bit platforms.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 23:08 ---
Note the testsuite already have a testcase for this issue as
g++.dg/opt/pr24665.C :). Actually look at that, this bug is about that
testcase :).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32746
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 02:26 ---
Reduced testcase:
struct RegisterLayout
{
int intmask;
};
struct Controller_t
{
static inline void
disableInterrupt()
{
*mpMaskRegister = 0;
};
static int * const mpMaskRegister;
};
ex
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
GCC build triplet|i686|
GCC host t
14 matches
Mail list logo
