[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-04-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 
Bug 20225 depends on bug 20635, which changed state.

Bug 20635 Summary: [4.0 Regression] ICE in cgraph_mark_reachable_node
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20635

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Status|NEW |WAITING
 Status|WAITING |NEW
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-27 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-27 
19:35 ---
This regression should be solved by the patch so I guess I will close it and 
move on the new regression :(

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-25 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-25 11:05 
---
This patch introduced a regression, see PR20635.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-24 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-24 
17:44 ---
Jan, you checked in a patch for this bug, but did not close it.  Is there still
an sisue, or should this bug be marked fixed?

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-18 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-18 
14:57 ---
Subject: Bug 20225

CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   2005-03-18 14:57:15

Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog cgraph.c varasm.c 

Log message:
PR middle-end/20225
* cgraph.c (cgraph_mark_reachable_node): Assert that it is not called
too late.
* varasm.c (find_decl_and_mark_needed): Mark needed only when not
called too late.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=2.7898r2=2.7899
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cgraph.c.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=1.66r2=1.67
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/varasm.c.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=1.482r2=1.483



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-18 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-18 
18:15 ---
Subject: Bug 20225

CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   2005-03-18 18:15:09

Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog cgraph.c varasm.c 

Log message:
PR middle-end/20225
* cgraph.c (cgraph_mark_reachable_node): Assert that it is not called
too late.
* varasm.c (find_decl_and_mark_needed): Mark needed only when not
called too late.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=2.7592.2.61r2=2.7592.2.62
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cgraph.c.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=1.64.8.1r2=1.64.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/varasm.c.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=1.477.6.2r2=1.477.6.3



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-13 
05:20 ---
*** Bug 20449 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pluto at pld-linux dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-10 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 13:37 
---
The problem appears to be unrelated to the referenced patch.

Debugging shows that we have a node that has been removed from the cgraph_nodes
list.  Because the node is not on the cgraph_nodes list, the 
node-prev-next == node invariant does not hold, and so the code generated by 
the 
chain_next/chain_prev GTY annotations segfaults.

The node is still reachable from another node's next_needed, which seems like 
the
real bug.  Honza agreed to work on the problem on IRC.

The easiest way to show the problem is to manually add

  if (x != NULL  x != (void *)1  x-previous == NULL  x != cgraph_nodes)
abort ();

to gt_ggc_mx_cgraph_node.

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|rth at gcc dot gnu dot org  |jh at suse dot cz


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-10 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 15:15 
---
Err, sorry, that how to reproduce snippet depended on some other changes
in my tree.  You'll have to check

  node-previous  node-previous-next != node.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-04 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-02-27 16:33:26 |2005-03-04 18:09:04
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-03-03 Thread schwab at suse dot de 

--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de  2005-03-03 12:56 ---
Also happens on i386. 

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|normal  |critical
 GCC target triplet|ia64-suse-linux |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-02-27 Thread schwab at suse dot de 

--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de  2005-02-27 16:08 ---
I can reproduce it with a cross compiler from powerpc64-linux. 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-02-27 Thread schwab at suse dot de 

--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de  2005-02-27 16:33 ---
Broken by this change: 
 
2005-01-01  Richard Henderson  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 
PR c/19031 
* c-decl.c (pop_file_scope): Call maybe_apply_pending_pragma_weaks. 
* c-lang.c (finish_file): Don't do it here. 
* objc/objc-act.c (objc_finish_file): Likewise. 
 
* cgraph.c (decl_assembler_name_equal): New. 
(cgraph_node_for_asm, cgraph_varpool_node_for_asm): New. 
(cgraph_varpool_node): Actually link up cgraph_varpool_nodes. 
* cgraph.h (struct cgraph_varpool_node): Add next. 
(cgraph_node_for_asm, cgraph_varpool_node_for_asm): Declare. 
* varasm.c (assemble_alias): Mark the target as needed. 
 

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed||1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-02-27 16:33:26
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-02-26 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org
  Component|c++ |middle-end
   Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-02-26 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-26 
23:55 ---
Hmm, the last time this happened, it was PR 17126.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225

[Bug middle-end/20225] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE during GC

2005-02-26 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-27 
02:25 ---
Hmm, I cannot reproduce with a cross compiler from powerpc-darwin with today's 
source.  Either we 
are missing compiling gcc or this could be related to one of my local patches 
(which I really doubt it).

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20225