https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #13 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 48313
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48313&action=edit
testing shim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 48270
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48270&action=edit
asserts to trigger it
I have found the cause, but not the underlying reason. We have template
arguments that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #10)
> I cannot reproduce it,
it is frustratingly difficult to do so.
> but looking at the gist referenced in comment #1 I
> see that the complaint is about two insta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I cannot reproduce it, but looking at the gist referenced in comment #1 I see
that the complaint is about two instances of the same instantiation of struct
std::integral_constant >
One of which has __attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48175|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #6)
> On 4/2/20 12:37 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
> > (In re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 48175
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48175&action=edit
un-reduced pre-processed on x86_64-linux
working on reducing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 4/2/20 12:37 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
>
> --- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4)
>> Oh, it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4)
> Oh, it is from the template specialization hash table. I suggest making
> that very poor to increase collisions:
>
> pt.c:
> static hashval_t
> hash_tmpl_and_arg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See also PR94044 for this, including a patch to do so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
there's a gist here:
https://gist.github.com/jwakely/e131d3a268a78764458186eff02f29ec
with Jonathan's valgrind session and some debug output from one case where I
managed to catch the fail under a debugger.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-02
Keywords|
16 matches
Mail list logo
