[Bug tree-optimization/19108] [4.0 regression] ICE initializing arrays
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-01 16:28 --- Yup, -march=i686 does the trick for me: $ ./cc1plus t.C -O -m32 -march=i686 A::A() A::A() A::A() B::B(const A&) B::B(const A&) B::B(const A&) void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int) void _GLOBAL__I_b() Analyzing compilation unit Performing intraprocedural optimizations Assembling functions: void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int) t.C: In function 'void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int)': t.C:13: internal compiler error: in sra_hash_tree, at tree-sra.c:384 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19108
[Bug tree-optimization/19108] [4.0 regression] ICE initializing arrays
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 16:10 --- (In reply to comment #5) > I can still reproduce it with the above testcase: > gcc version 4.0.0 20041230 (experimental) on i686-pc-linux-gnu. > > Maybe it is target dependant? It is. You might have to use -march=i686. -- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19108
[Bug tree-optimization/19108] [4.0 regression] ICE initializing arrays
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 16:08 --- I can still reproduce it with the above testcase: gcc version 4.0.0 20041230 (experimental) on i686-pc-linux-gnu. Maybe it is target dependant? Did you try larger array sizes than 6? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19108
[Bug tree-optimization/19108] [4.0 regression] ICE initializing arrays
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 12:13 --- I cannot reproduce this (it is monitored??). I still think something like Andrew's patch is necessary, but without a test case, well, how can we be sure?? -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19108
[Bug tree-optimization/19108] [4.0 regression] ICE initializing arrays
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-22 12:43 --- Looks like fall-out from PR18191. I'll try to take care of this. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2004-12-21 15:30:54 |2004-12-22 12:43:56 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19108
[Bug tree-optimization/19108] [4.0 regression] ICE initializing arrays
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-21 16:10 --- sra_hash_tree does not handle RANGE_EXPRs. This implements them but it might not be the correct approach though: Index: tree-sra.c === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/tree-sra.c,v retrieving revision 2.47 diff -u -p -r2.47 tree-sra.c --- tree-sra.c 10 Dec 2004 21:54:42 - 2.47 +++ tree-sra.c 21 Dec 2004 16:09:09 - @@ -378,6 +378,11 @@ sra_hash_tree (tree t) h = iterative_hash_expr (DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (t), 0); h = iterative_hash_expr (DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (t), h); break; + +case RANGE_EXPR: + h = sra_hash_tree (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0)); + h ^= sra_hash_tree (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1)); + break; default: gcc_unreachable (); -- What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19108
[Bug tree-optimization/19108] [4.0 regression] ICE initializing arrays
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-21 15:30 --- This is more likely related to a bug which I filed. -- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Component|c++ |tree-optimization Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-12-21 15:30:54 date|| Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19108
