[Bug rtl-optimization/84643] gcc/optabs.c:6549:26: runtime error: load of value 131075, which is not a valid value for type 'memmodel'

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84643

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Fixed.

[Bug rtl-optimization/84643] gcc/optabs.c:6549:26: runtime error: load of value 131075, which is not a valid value for type 'memmodel'

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84643

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 19 20:46:23 2018
New Revision: 258662

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258662=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/84643
* memmodel.h (enum memmodel): Add MEMMODEL_MAX enumerator.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/memmodel.h

[Bug rtl-optimization/84643] gcc/optabs.c:6549:26: runtime error: load of value 131075, which is not a valid value for type 'memmodel'

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84643

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed||2018-03-19
   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Created attachment 43697
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43697=edit
gcc8-pr84643.patch

Untested fix.

[Bug rtl-optimization/84643] gcc/optabs.c:6549:26: runtime error: load of value 131075, which is not a valid value for type 'memmodel'

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84643

--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška  ---
It's caused by fact that 
#define IX86_HLE_ACQUIRE (1 << 16)
#define IX86_HLE_RELEASE (1 << 17)

are not defined in memmodel enum.

[Bug rtl-optimization/84643] gcc/optabs.c:6549:26: runtime error: load of value 131075, which is not a valid value for type 'memmodel'

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84643

--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška  ---
*** Bug 84944 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***