[Bug bootstrap/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #23 from Chris Clayton --- On 18/07/2022 19:13, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 > > Aldy Hernandez changed: > >What|Removed |Added > ---

[Bug bootstrap/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #20 from Chris Clayton --- On 08/07/2022 15:02, Chris Clayton wrote: > Hi > > On 04/07/2022 00:12, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 >> >> Andrew Pinski changed: >> >>

[Bug bootstrap/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #19 from Chris Clayton --- Hi On 04/07/2022 00:12, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > >What|Removed |Added > --

[Bug bootstrap/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #18 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53256 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53256&action=edit git bisect log

[Bug bootstrap/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #17 from Chris Clayton --- I've cloned git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and bisected between 13-20220626 (ff35dbc02092fbcd3d814fcd9fe8e871c3f741fd) and 13-20220619 (4390e7bfbc641a52c6192b448768dafdf4565527) as bad and good respectively.

[Bug bootstrap/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #16 from Chris Clayton --- I've tried two further build of gcc-13 using gcc-12-20220702. The gcc-13-20220703 snapshot fails with the same ICEs but the 20220619 snapshot builds successfully. So we have 13-20220626 and 13-20220703 bo

[Bug bootstrap/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #15 from Chris Clayton --- On 04/07/2022 00:12, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > >What|Removed |Added > --

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton --- I've just run the build again with gcc-11-20220701 and get the same set of ICEs. I've kept the files of diagnostics output by gcc and can provide them id they will be helpful.

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #11 from Chris Clayton --- On 03/07/2022 12:00, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 > > --- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab --- > How did you build the bootstrap compiler? > I assume

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #9 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53255 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53255&action=edit Error messages output to terminal

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #8 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53254 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53254&action=edit GCC diagnostics file 9

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #7 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53253 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53253&action=edit GCC diagnostics file 8

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #6 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53252 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53252&action=edit GCC diagnostics file 7

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #5 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53251 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53251&action=edit GCC diagnostics file 6

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #4 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53250 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53250&action=edit GCC diagnostics file 5

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #3 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53249 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53249&action=edit GCC diagnostics file 4

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #2 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53248 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53248&action=edit GCC diagnostics file 3

[Bug c/106172] Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 --- Comment #1 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 53247 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53247&action=edit GCC diagnostics file 2

[Bug c/106172] New: Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172 Bug ID: 106172 Summary: Multiple ICEs building gcc-13 with gcc-12 Product: gcc Version: 12.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/105256] [9/10 Regression] ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 --- Comment #33 from Chris Clayton --- On 20/04/2022 07:46, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug c++/105256] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 --- Comment #25 from Chris Clayton --- I went ahead and patched gcc-11-0220409 and with the resultant compiler have had two successful builds of firefox-99. I then reverted to the unpatched gcc and a build of firefox-99 failed with the same ICE

[Bug c++/105256] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 --- Comment #24 from Chris Clayton --- I see the patch is for gcc-12. As I said in comment, I don't get the ICE with the latest gcc-12 snapshot, but is it worth me applying the patch to gcc-11 (with which I do get the ICE) and testing a build wi

[Bug c++/105256] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 --- Comment #17 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 52810 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52810&action=edit Compiler commands Finally got them by running running "ps ax" in a while true loop, grepping the output for t

[Bug c++/105256] ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 --- Comment #6 from Chris Clayton --- I'm struggling to get the compiler command line. The build system is wrapped in a build tool called mach and I'm darned if I can find an argument that will cause it to report the command it is about to launc

[Bug c++/105256] ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 --- Comment #5 from Chris Clayton --- The .ii file was huge so I've had to split it and then compress the parts

[Bug c++/105256] ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 --- Comment #4 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 52804 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52804&action=edit Second Requested file - part2

[Bug c++/105256] ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 --- Comment #3 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 52803 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52803&action=edit Second requested file - part1

[Bug c++/105256] ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 --- Comment #2 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 52802 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52802&action=edit First requested file

[Bug c++/105256] New: ICE compiling firefox-99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256 Bug ID: 105256 Summary: ICE compiling firefox-99 Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assigne

[Bug tree-optimization/97953] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #22 from Chris Clayton --- I've applied Richard's patch to the 20201122 snapshot and can happily report that the build now completes successfully. My thanks to Martin and Richard.

[Bug tree-optimization/97953] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #13 from Chris Clayton --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9) > Ok, so the question is: does it reproduce with the current master or now? Short answer: Yes, it does. A build done this morning (after pulling the latest change

[Bug tree-optimization/97953] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 49622 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49622&action=edit git bisect log

[Bug tree-optimization/97953] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #11 from Chris Clayton --- I've finished the bisect and landed at: [chris:~/scratch/gcc-ICE/gcc]$ git bisect good bd87cc14ebdb6789e067fb1828d5808407c308b3 is the first bad commit commit bd87cc14ebdb6789e067fb1828d5808407c308b3 Author

[Bug tree-optimization/97953] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #8 from Chris Clayton --- Sorry, my last comment contains an error. git bisect start... reported 7 bisections would be needed not that there were only 7 commits.

[Bug tree-optimization/97953] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #7 from Chris Clayton --- Yes, Richard's correct. I'm building from snapshot releases. That's why I used the term "snapshot releases" in comment 4. I've cloned git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and am bisecting between b642fca1c31b2e2175e

[Bug c/97953] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #4 from Chris Clayton --- I've done a few more builds of snapshot releases of gcc-11. Using with gcc-10-20201122, I get the ICE building 11-2020115, but 11-20201108 and 20201101 both build successfully.

[Bug c/97953] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #2 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 49612 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49612&action=edit Full build log

[Bug c/97953] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #1 from Chris Clayton --- Created attachment 49611 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49611&action=edit Preprocessed source

[Bug c/97953] New: ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 Bug ID: 97953 Summary: ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED