https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92715

            Bug ID: 92715
           Summary: error: position plus size exceeds size of referenced
                    object in  ‘bit_field_ref’
           Product: gcc
           Version: 10.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 47390
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47390&action=edit
gzipped C++ source code

For the attached C++ source code, compiled by recent gcc trunk
and compiler flag -O3 -march=native, does this:

/home/dcb/gcc/results.278750/bin/g++
/home/dcb/gcc/results.278800/bin/g++
/home/dcb30/rpmbuild/BUILD/ompl-1.3.2-Source/src/ompl/geometric/planners/rrt/src
/VFRRT.cpp: In member function ‘Eigen::VectorXd
ompl::geometric::VFRRT::getNewDi
rection(const ompl::base::State*, const ompl::base::State*)’:
/home/dcb30/rpmbuild/BUILD/ompl-1.3.2-Source/src/ompl/geometric/planners/rrt/src
/VFRRT.cpp:93:17: error: position plus size exceeds size of referenced object
in
 ‘bit_field_ref’
   93 | Eigen::VectorXd ompl::geometric::VFRRT::getNewDirection(const
base::Stat
e *qnear, const base::State *qrand)
      |                 ^~~~
_69 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_67, 256, 0>;
during GIMPLE pass: forwprop
/home/dcb30/rpmbuild/BUILD/ompl-1.3.2-Source/src/ompl/geometric/planners/rrt/src
/VFRRT.cpp:93:17: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
0x1155fc9 verify_gimple_in_cfg(function*, bool)
        ../../trunk/gcc/tree-cfg.c:5445
0x1004a5f execute_function_todo
        ../../trunk/gcc/passes.c:1983
0x1005e11 do_per_function
        ../../trunk/gcc/passes.c:1638
0x1005e11 execute_todo
        ../../trunk/gcc/passes.c:2037

The bug seems to start sometime between revision 278750 and 278800.
/proc/cpuinfo says:

cpu family      : 21
model           : 2
model name      : AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor
stepping        : 0

I'll have my usual go at reducing the code.

Reply via email to