[Bug ipa/64139] [5 Regression] ice in possible_polymorphic_call_targets, at ipa-devirt.c:2410
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64139 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1
[Bug ipa/64139] [5 Regression] ice in possible_polymorphic_call_targets, at ipa-devirt.c:2410
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64139 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- Well, that assert is there because I was mostly curious if it is possible to construct valid C++ program doing so. I will figure out if the context passed seems legit and probably just remove the assert.
[Bug ipa/64139] [5 Regression] ice in possible_polymorphic_call_targets, at ipa-devirt.c:2410
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64139 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- And by the way, neither ipa-cp nor ipa-prop invents anything funny here. It feeds ipa-devirt exactly the same context that it created in ipa_compute_jump_functions_for_edge (i.e. that the constructor created for the call argument).
[Bug ipa/64139] [5 Regression] ice in possible_polymorphic_call_targets, at ipa-devirt.c:2410
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64139 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org, ||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor --- Honza, does this assert in possible_polymorphic_call_targets: gcc_assert (odr_violation_reported); make sense even when called from ipa-cp? (And thus possibly with illegal polymorphic contexts for some call contexts which is OK as long as their use is guarded at run-time.)
[Bug ipa/64139] [5 Regression] ice in possible_polymorphic_call_targets, at ipa-devirt.c:2410
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64139 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2014-12-01 CC||mjambor at suse dot cz Component|c++ |ipa Target Milestone|--- |5.0 Summary|ice in |[5 Regression] ice in |possible_polymorphic_call_t |possible_polymorphic_call_t |argets, at |argets, at |ipa-devirt.c:2410 |ipa-devirt.c:2410 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- It was caused by r217587.