Re: unreducable cp_tree_equal ICE in gcc-4.0.0-20050410

2005-04-13 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Nick Rasmussen wrote: > I'm running into an ICE in the prerelease, that is proving to be > very difficult in reducing to a small testcase. If I preprocess > the source (via -E or -save-temps) the code successfully compiles. > If I minimally change the source file in som

re: unreducable cp_tree_equal ICE in gcc-4.0.0-20050410

2005-04-13 Thread Dan Kegel
Nick Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm running into an ICE in the prerelease, that is proving to be very difficult in reducing to a small testcase. If I preprocess the source (via -E or -save-temps) the code successfully compiles. > ... Does this bug look familiar? 20629 is ICEing in the s

Re: unreducable cp_tree_equal ICE in gcc-4.0.0-20050410

2005-04-14 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Apr 13, 2005, at 10:39 PM, Michael Matz wrote: So PRE is trying to compare two types, and they contains something which can't be handled. Either because they were silently overwritten, or because of a logical error. Or because the C++ front-end does not handle SSA_NAME, there was a thread abo

Re: unreducable cp_tree_equal ICE in gcc-4.0.0-20050410

2005-04-14 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Apr 13, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Nick Rasmussen wrote: I'm running into an ICE in the prerelease, that is proving to be very difficult in reducing to a small testcase. If I preprocess the source (via -E or -save-temps) the code successfully compiles. If I minimally change the source file in some ways

Re: unreducable cp_tree_equal ICE in gcc-4.0.0-20050410

2005-04-14 Thread Dale Johannesen
On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:14 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: Does this bug look familiar? 20629 is ICEing in the same spot, but it looks like theirs was reproducible after preprocessing. Is there any more information that I provide that would be helpful? I've attached the command line, specs and a stacktra

Re: unreducable cp_tree_equal ICE in gcc-4.0.0-20050410

2005-04-23 Thread Nick Rasmussen
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:14 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >>Does this bug look familiar? 20629 is ICEing in the same spot, but > >>it looks like theirs was reproducible after preprocessing. Is there > >>any more information that I provide that would be hel