On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > Hi Richard, > > On Wed, 2017-01-11 16:28:33 +0100, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > > > LTO bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress. > > > > > > (most "gross" are still TS_LIST having a type and TS_VEC having type > > > and chain, but that's been hard to fix with the C++ FE in place) > > > > Forgot the tree-core.h part. > > > > Re-bootstrapping testing on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > > > Richard. > > > > 2017-01-11 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > > > > * tree.c (initialize_tree_contains_struct): Make TS_OPTIMIZATION > > and TS_TARGET_OPTION directly derive from TS_BASE. > > * tree-core.h (tree_optimization_option): Derive from tree_base. > > (tree_target_option): Likewise. > > This caused (or uncovered) a self-test issue on arm-netbsdelf (as run > by config-list.mk), like in this build: > http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id=696565 > > /home/jbglaw/build-configlist_mk/arm-netbsdelf/build-gcc/mk/arm-netbsdelf/./gcc/xgcc > > -B/home/jbglaw/build-configlist_mk/arm-netbsdelf/build-gcc/mk/arm-netbsdelf/./gcc/ > -nostdinc -x c /dev/null -S -o /dev/null > -fself-test=/home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/selftests > cc1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault > 0xaf7fdf crash_signal > /home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/toplev.c:333 > 0x6739b3 lookup_page_table_entry > /home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c:635 > 0x6739b3 ggc_set_mark(void const*) > /home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c:1532 > 0x571bff gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node(void*) > ./gt-c-c-decl.h:49 > 0x57242a gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node(void*) > ./gt-c-c-decl.h:401 > 0x572fae gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node(void*) > ./gt-c-c-decl.h:382 > 0x571e61 gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node(void*) > ./gt-c-c-decl.h:391 > 0x83ed15 ggc_mark_root_tab > /home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/ggc-common.c:77 > 0x83ef70 ggc_mark_roots() > /home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/ggc-common.c:94 > 0x674417 ggc_collect() > /home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c:2202 > 0x842dff selftest::forcibly_ggc_collect() > /home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/ggc-tests.c:36 > 0x11d0491 selftest::run_tests() > /home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/selftest-run-tests.c:103 > 0xaf9742 toplev::run_self_tests() > /home/jbglaw/repos-configlist_mk/gcc/gcc/toplev.c:2046 > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. > See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions. > Makefile:1932: recipe for target 's-selftest' failed > > > Reverting your patch from current HEAD lets the self-test pass. Do you > spot something obvious?
No, can you see which collect call in the self-test is involved? That is, a better backtrace, eventually when compiling the testcase with -O0? Richard. > MfG, JBG > > -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
