[Bug middle-end/24279] SEGV at reload.c:2400 with -O2
--- Comment #8 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-08 16:32 --- Works as of 4.1 according to #7. -- kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24279
[Bug middle-end/24279] SEGV at reload.c:2400 with -O2
--- Comment #7 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-19 21:13 --- Jonathan, The testcase seems to work with GCC 4.1. As far as getting the testcase into the testsuite, you need to post a patch first. The best thing to do at this point is to reduce the testcase so that it will be easier to analyze what's going on. -- kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org Known to work||4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24279
[Bug middle-end/24279] SEGV at reload.c:2400 with -O2
--- Comment #6 from shap at eros-os dot org 2005-11-05 19:44 --- I know you folks have many other things to do, but any further ideas on this one? If not, what can I do to help get the test case confirmed and into the regression suite? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24279
[Bug middle-end/24279] SEGV at reload.c:2400 with -O2
--- Comment #5 from shap at eros-os dot org 2005-10-08 22:19 --- The patch from PR 23043 does NOT resolve this. Same error, reported at the same place in reload.c. Given the number of other mode-related bugs against m68k, I was suspicious of that, but when I re-run under gdb, the value of val.start at the time of the fault is improbably high (1708), and then I get (gdb) p hard_regno_nregs[val.start] Cannot access memory at address 0x831b0d0 Not sure if this helps suggest anything. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24279
[Bug middle-end/24279] SEGV at reload.c:2400 with -O2
--- Comment #4 from shap at eros-os dot org 2005-10-08 21:58 --- Testing the patch now. I'll report back shortly. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24279
[Bug middle-end/24279] SEGV at reload.c:2400 with -O2
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-08 21:24 --- I think this might be a duplicate of PR 23043 which is fixed for 4.0.3, it missed 4.0.2 by a mistake. Can you try a cvs version of the 4.0 branch to see if this is fixed? Or try the patch which is referenced in that PR? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24279