[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka --- fixed.
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 --- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka --- Author: hubicka Date: Fri Jan 16 04:45:53 2015 New Revision: 219705 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219705&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/62053 * tree.c (build_cplus_array_type): Layout type after variants are set. Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/tree.c
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 --- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka --- Patch posted as https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01202.html
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Bernhard Rosenkränzer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@linar
||o.org
--- Comment #10 from Bernhard Rosenkränzer ---
Another test case for what is very likely the same problem:
typedef char A;
class B {
public:
B();
};
B::B() {
int a = 0;
A b[a];
}
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Another testcase:
constexpr int
foo (int i)
{
constexpr int a[i] = { };
}
constexpr int j = foo (1);
./cc1plus -quiet bug.C -std=c++14
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 --- Comment #8 from David Binderman --- (In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #7) > The patch fixed the issue for me, thanks! This bug has been unresolved for over three months now. Time for some more testing of the patch ?
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko --- The patch fixed the issue for me, thanks!
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing the following
Index: tree.c
===
--- tree.c (revision 216141)
+++ tree.c (working copy)
@@ -863,12 +863,12 @@ build_cplus_array_type (tree elt_type, t
{
t = build_min_array_type (elt_type, index_type);
set_array_type_canon (t, elt_type, index_type);
- if (!dependent)
- layout_type (t);
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (t) = m;
TYPE_NEXT_VARIANT (t) = TYPE_NEXT_VARIANT (m);
TYPE_NEXT_VARIANT (m) = t;
+ if (!dependent)
+ layout_type (t);
}
}
the problem here is that calling layout_type before linking variants makes it
to biuld separate (but equivalent) experessions representing size/size_unit for
the variant. The assert in tree-inline check that type and its variants have
same sizes that should always be true.
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Ivchenko --- Ping.. any updates? We cannot build Android since the beginning of Jul, and, hence, cannot evaluate 5.0 candidate for it. I find it very unfortunate
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- I am looking into it now...
[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [5 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko --- Jan, by any chance, do you have any progress on that? May be we should revert the patch until the proper fix?
