[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Bug rtl-optimization/17356] [4.0 Regression] [Ada] [ia64] ACATS c41325a & other ICE, also while building libada




------- Comment #21 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-19 23:10 -------
I done bootstrap tests for the gcc-4.0.x branch.  I bootstrapped all default
languages plus ada with and without the patch.  There were no regressions. 
There was also no failure as reported in the PR, which seemed funny, until I
reread the PR.

The failures reported here only happen with --enable-checking.  So what we have
here is a minor internal inconsistency, which has caused no known end user
problems.  From my investigation, I think the worst this problem will cause is
missed optimizations.  Since nothing is seriously broken, I think applying the
patch to gcc-4.0 branch is an unnecessary risk.

I no longer think my patch is completely safe, as I now think I screwed up.  I
think there are 3 kinds of edges we need to deal with here, EH edges, abnormal
call EH edges, and abnormal call non-EH edges, and we need to perform both
tests for the abnormal call EH edges instead of switching the order of the
tests as I did.  I need to look at this a bit more and check to see if this is
the case.  If I did screw up, then I've got plenty of time to fix this before
the gcc-4.1 release so things are OK there.  But on the gcc-4.0.x branch, I'd
be making things worse than they already are.  Hence, I'd rather leave well
enough alone on the gcc-4.0.x branch.

In summary, I think we should close this as fixed in gcc-4.1 and as a wontfix
for gcc-4.0.  Unless someone wants to argue otherwise.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17356

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.



Reply to: