Bug 17478 - [4.0 regression] ICE in verify_stmts
Summary: [4.0 regression] ICE in verify_stmts
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 17483
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: c++ (show other bugs)
Version: 4.0.0
: P2 critical
Target Milestone: 4.0.0
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Depends on: 17483
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2004-09-14 14:18 UTC by Wolfgang Bangerth
Modified: 2005-07-23 22:49 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail: 4.0.0
Last reconfirmed:

Attachments
preprocessed sources (155.40 KB, application/x-gzip)
2004-09-14 14:20 UTC, Wolfgang Bangerth 		Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Wolfgang Bangerth 2004-09-14 14:18:42 UTC 
With the code I'm going to attach in a second, I get this: 
 
spec/src> c++ -O3 -c sparse_matrix.double.ii  
include/lac/sparse_matrix.h: In member function `typename 
SparseMatrix<number>::const_iterator SparseMatrix<number>::begin() const [with 
number = double]': 
include/lac/sparse_matrix.h:2126: error: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit 
not set 
D.113567 
 
include/lac/sparse_matrix.h:2126: internal compiler error: verify_stmts 
failed. 
Please submit a full bug report, 
with preprocessed source if appropriate. 
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. 
 
W.
Comment 1 Wolfgang Bangerth 2004-09-14 14:20:41 UTC 
Created attachment 7129 [details]
preprocessed sources

Unreduced sources. I won't have time to reduce them for a while, so if
someone wants to beat me to it, I'd be happy.

W.
Comment 2 Wolfgang Bangerth 2004-09-14 14:21:29 UTC 
Forgot to say, this is with yesterday's CVS. 
W.
Comment 3 Giovanni Bajo 2004-09-14 14:23:04 UTC 
BTW, we should not emit this stuff with error(), but rather internal_error() 
because this way it seems a normal diagnostic.
Comment 4 Andrew Pinski 2004-09-14 16:22:01 UTC 
This is more likely a front-end problem rather than a tree-optimization problem.
Comment 5 Andrew Pinski 2004-09-14 20:41:44 UTC 
This is most likely a dup of bug 17483.
Comment 6 Andrew Pinski 2004-09-14 21:56:53 UTC 
Yes this is a dup of bug 17483.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17483 ***