--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:01
---
Reconfirmed. The problem still exists.
#1 0x0844d296 in copy_to_mode_reg (mode=SImode, x=0xb7c8b1a0)
at /home/richard/src/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/explow.c:577
577 gcc_assert (GET_MODE (x) == mode ||
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:06
---
But of course at least after SRA we miss a NOP_EXPR on the initialization:
intD.2 SR.40D.1798;
short intD.12 SR.39D.1797;
short intD.12 test$typeD.1796;
short intD.12 D.1745;
short intD.12 D.1744;
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:45
---
And we get that because for the COMPONENT_REF
D.1741.typeD.1734
we have
component_ref 0xb7c3d168
type integer_type 0xb7c401cc short int HI
size integer_cst 0xb7c2e300 constant invariant 16
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 13:46
---
So the proposed patch (for all branches) is:
Index: tree.c
===
*** tree.c (revision 120477)
--- tree.c (working copy)
***
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:30
---
Mine (patch posted).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 20:59
---
Subject: Bug 27826
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 20:59:15 2007
New Revision: 120497
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120497
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 21:04
---
Subject: Bug 27826
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 21:04:23 2007
New Revision: 120498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120498
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 21:09
---
Subject: Bug 27826
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 5 21:08:47 2007
New Revision: 120499
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120499
Log:
2007-01-05 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-14 17:30
---
I cannot getting this to fail with current GCC 4.1.2 sources. Can others still
reproduce this problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27826
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-14 17:44
---
Yes:
gcc41-g/gcc ./cc1plus -quiet t.C -O3
t.C: In function 'int f()':
t.C:6: internal compiler error: in copy_to_mode_reg, at explow.c:577
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27826
--- Comment #12 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-09 18:10 ---
The reduced testcase from comment #7 doesn't fail with my i686 cross compilers
on powerpc-linux, so I did a regression hunt using the testcase from comment
#4. It identified this patch as the fix on mainline:
--- Comment #13 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-09 18:44 ---
The test starts failing on mainline with this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=83858
r83858 | rth | 2004-06-29 16:25:28 + (Tue, 29 Jun 2004)
--
--- Comment #11 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-06-08 17:26 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Bangerth, why did you change the Priority? That is the job of the Release
manager.
Actually, as a remark, I believe this isn't true. Bugmasters have always
adjusted initial priorities of
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27826
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 22:12 ---
Bangerth, why did you change the Priority? That is the job of the Release
manager.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-06-07 22:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in copy_to_mode_reg
Bangerth, why did you change the Priority? That is the job of the Release
manager.
Fair enough -- I'll defer to his judgment if he would like to
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-08 00:26
---
Janis could you do a regression hunt on this bug?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from christophpfister at bluemail dot ch 2006-06-03 09:27
---
Further reduced testcase:
---
struct Geometry
{
int type:16;
};
struct Geometry get() {};
int f()
{
struct Geometry test;
return get().type == test.type;
}
---
ICE occurs only with g++,
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-01 04:27 ---
My reduced testcase also fails with 4.0.2 which I was somewhat expecting.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-01 04:33 ---
if (type$basicType_ == SR.5) goto L1; else goto L2;
...
short int type$basicType_;
int SR.5;
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27826
21 matches
Mail list logo
