Bug 24601 - ICE/segfault on valid code gcc-4.1-20051001
Summary: ICE/segfault on valid code gcc-4.1-20051001
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: middle-end (show other bugs)
Version: 4.1.0
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: 4.1.0
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-10-31 23:24 UTC by Jean-Marc Valin
Modified: 2005-11-02 01:07 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Host: i486-linux-gnu
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Build: i486-linux-gnu
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed:


Attachments
Preprocessed source (3.26 KB, text/x-csrc)
2005-10-31 23:25 UTC, Jean-Marc Valin
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jean-Marc Valin 2005-10-31 23:24:19 UTC
I'm getting an ICE with gcc-4.1-20051001 on the code in attachment. When
compiling with:
% gcc -O2 -march=pentium3 -ftree-vectorize -c cb_search_pre.c
the result is:
cb_search.c: In function 'split_cb_search_shape_sign':
cb_search.c:268: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.

If I remove any of the three optimization switches, the ICE goes away
(anything older than pentium3 is also OK for -march). In case it's of
any interest, this file is part of the Speex codec.

I ogiginally sent an email: http://www.archivum.info/gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org/2005-10/msg00545.html but it didn't seem to make it to the database.
Comment 1 Jean-Marc Valin 2005-10-31 23:25:20 UTC
Created attachment 10091 [details]
Preprocessed source
Comment 2 Andrew Pinski 2005-11-01 00:17:26 UTC
Can you try a newer compiler as I cannot reproduce this with 20051026 ?
Comment 3 Jean-Marc Valin 2005-11-01 00:20:10 UTC
Can you send a link to a tarball of the compiler you want me to try?
Comment 4 Andrew Pinski 2005-11-01 00:52:06 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg01152.html
Comment 5 Jean-Marc Valin 2005-11-02 00:57:43 UTC
Tried it with gcc-4.1-20051029 and the problem's gone (well, this one at least).
Comment 6 Andrew Pinski 2005-11-02 01:07:00 UTC
Fixed then.