On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 12:45 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 3/31/21 8:45 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This patch is causing new crashes in the testsuite.
> >
> > ICE in release_body, at graph.c:1863
> > ranges offset out of range
>
> Hello.
>
> Should be fixed with 23ce9945d5efa77c
> This patch is causing ICEs on arm and aarch64, and others according to
> gcc-testresults:
> on aarch64:
> g++.dg/ipa/devirt-7.C -std=gnu++14 (internal compiler error)
> g++.dg/ipa/devirt-7.C -std=gnu++17 (internal compiler error)
> g++.dg/ipa/devirt-7.C -std=gnu++2a (internal compi
Hi,
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 11:38, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> in the dicussion on PR 99447 there was some confusion about release_body
> being used in context where call edges/references survive. This is not
> a valid use because it would leave stale pointers to ggc_freed memory
> location. By a
On 3/31/21 8:45 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This patch is causing new crashes in the testsuite.
>
> ICE in release_body, at graph.c:1863
> ranges offset out of range
Hello.
Should be fixed with 23ce9945d5efa77c96161443f68e03664705ada3.
Martin
>
> Thanks, David
>
This patch is causing new crashes in the testsuite.
ICE in release_body, at graph.c:1863
ranges offset out of range
Thanks, David
Hi,
in the dicussion on PR 99447 there was some confusion about release_body
being used in context where call edges/references survive. This is not
a valid use because it would leave stale pointers to ggc_freed memory
location. By auditing code I did not find any however this patch moves
the callee
