[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 12:23 --- This also breaks because of gimple_regimplify_operands Breakpoint 3, gimple_regimplify_operands (stmt=0x2af5b100, gsi_p=0x7fffe3b0) at ../../gcc/gimplify.c:7374 7374 push_gimplify_context (gctx); (gdb) p debug_gimple_stmt (stmt) __comp_ctor (this_1(D)-time_); shortly after processing this we die. I am investigating. Honza -- hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenther at suse dot de, ||jakub at redhat dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 12:37 --- Jakub, disabling the regimplification introduced here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00500.html fixes the testcase. Since you invented the regimplify function, could you take a look, please? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 12:47 --- Created an attachment (id=16263) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16263action=view) patch in testing OK, I think the problem is that regimplify expect the statement to be already inserted. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 13:03 --- Yes, it does (after all, it sometimes needs to insert statements even after stmt). Your patch is IMHO correct, but incomplete. There are 2 things that also need doing: 1) I think in while (!gsi_end_p (copy_gsi)) loop we want to iterate from the first stmt inserted from remaping orig_stmt, whether it is created by force_gimple_operand_gsi or gimple_regimplify_operands. ATM we just handle the last one. I guess we want 2 gimple_stmt_iterator's, one will keep advancing to the last stmt and one will be copy_gsi value when gimple_duplicate_stmt_histograms was called. 2) insert_init_stmt also calls gimple_regimplify_operands. It shouldn't create new gimplify_context, as gimple_regimplify_operands does that, and I'm not sure it needs to call find_new_referenced_vars (gimple_regimplify_operands calls mark_symbols_for_renaming and add_referenced_var on the temps). Certainly init_stmt needs to be inserted into the sequence before calling gimple_regimplify_operands though. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 13:07 --- PR37432 is also related, where regimplify operands fails to notice that a non-register lhs requires a temporary. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2008-09-04 01:17:53 |2008-09-09 17:14:41 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
-- jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 22:07 --- Subject: Bug 37356 Author: jakub Date: Tue Sep 9 22:06:20 2008 New Revision: 140177 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140177 Log: PR middle-end/37356 * tree-inline.c (copy_bb): Insert stmt into copy_basic_block before calling gimple_regimplify_operands on it. Iterate over all newly added statements, not just the last one. (insert_init_stmt): Insert stmt into seq first, then call gimple_regimplify_operands on it. Don't create new gimplification context, nor find referenced vars. * g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr37356.C: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr37356.C Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-inline.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 22:11 --- Fixed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-08 23:52 --- The regression appeared between 2008-07-26 and 2008-07-29? Fallout of tuples merge? -- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2008-09-03 17:23 --- Created an attachment (id=16210) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16210action=view) Preprocessed code -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2008-09-03 17:24 --- Created an attachment (id=16211) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16211action=view) Slightly reduced testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-03 21:28 --- This might have been fixed by: 2008-09-03 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR tree-optimization/37328 * tree-sra.c (sra_build_assignment): Gimplify properly. (generate_copy_inout): Take the correct stmt as definition, remove bogus assert. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
[Bug middle-end/37356] [4.4 Regression] ICE in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:222
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-04 01:17 ---
Nope, this is an inlining issue. Reduced testcase:
bool f();
int neg_infinity();
bool is_inf(int v) {
return (v == neg_infinity());
};
struct counted_time_rep {
counted_time_rep()
{
is_inf(1) || f();
}
};
struct base_time {
static counted_time_rep get_time_rep() {
return counted_time_rep();
}
base_time(const int day){}
base_time() :time_(get_time_rep() ) { }
counted_time_rep time_;
};
base_time a1;
void f1(void)
{
int d;
a1 = d;
}
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-09-04 01:17:53
date||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
