Bug 22593 - ICE in force_decl_die, at dwarf2out.c:12621
Summary: ICE in force_decl_die, at dwarf2out.c:12621
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 22514
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: debug (show other bugs)
Version: 4.1.0
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-07-21 16:21 UTC by Michael Cieslinski
Modified: 2005-07-23 22:49 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Build: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed:


Attachments
preprocessed source (188.86 KB, text/plain)
2005-07-21 16:22 UTC, Michael Cieslinski
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Michael Cieslinski 2005-07-21 16:21:51 UTC
When I compile one of our files with the actual snapshot of gcc41 I get an ICE.

The last snapshot which works is gcc-4.1-20050604,
the first that fails is gcc-4.1-20050611


Michael Cieslinski


g++41g -g  -c -o AutoFocus.o AutoFocus.ii
AutoFocus.ii:32394: error: 'CompressDefault' was not declared in this scope
AutoFocus.ii:32395: error: 'CompressDefault' was not declared in this scope
AutoFocus.ii: In instantiation of 'std::list<BasicLoggerOutput*, 
std::allocator<BasicLoggerOutput*> >':
AutoFocus.ii:33244:   instantiated from here
AutoFocus.ii:27629: internal compiler error: in force_decl_die, at 
dwarf2out.c:12621
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate.


g++41g -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1-20050716/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc41g --
program-suffix=41g --with-arch=opteron --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-
checking
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050716 (experimental)
Comment 1 Michael Cieslinski 2005-07-21 16:22:43 UTC
Created attachment 9321 [details]
preprocessed source
Comment 2 Andrew Pinski 2005-07-21 16:35:29 UTC
I think this is a dup of bug 22514.  One thing that makes me think it is a dup of that bug is that the 
dates match up to the dates in that bug.
Comment 3 Andrew Pinski 2005-07-21 17:37:49 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22514 ***