| Summary: | [4.1 regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2506 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | gcc | Reporter: | Jonathan Briggs <zlynx> |
| Component: | tree-optimization | Assignee: | Daniel Berlin <dberlin> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | bkoz, dberlin, gcc-bugs, jsm28, pawel_sikora, pinskia, reichelt |
| Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | ice-on-valid-code, monitored |
| Version: | 4.1.0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 4.1.0 | ||
| Host: | Target: | ||
| Build: | Known to work: | ||
| Known to fail: | Last reconfirmed: | 2005-06-27 16:25:08 | |
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 22096 | ||
| Attachments: |
Preprocessed code to reproduce bug
another test case |
||
|
Description
Jonathan Briggs
2005-06-15 02:03:12 UTC
Created attachment 9089 [details]
Preprocessed code to reproduce bug
Oh, I marked it as a regression because gcc-4.0.1-beta20050526 seemed to work fine. Confirmed, reduced testcase:
struct empty_class {};
struct class1 : empty_class
{
class1() {}
empty_class value_;
};
struct lambda : class1 { };
lambda _1;
I am running into this as well. Turning off all optimizations (-O0) allows compilation, anything over -O1 hits it. Created attachment 9128 [details]
another test case
For historical purposes only, since there is already a smaller testcase.
(In reply to comment #5) > Created an attachment (id=9128) > another test case Hmm, that testcase is only reproducible on i686-pc-linux-gnu and not on powerpc-darwin, while the reduced one is on both. I am going to reduce yours now. Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2506 On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 17:59 +0000, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-22 17:59 ------- > > I am running into this as well. Turning off all optimizations (-O0) allows > compilation, anything over -O1 hits it. > This one is because of structures with a lot of holes in them, where we make accesses that bridge the hole, and cna't ind the field that gets associated with it. > Ah, the old "can't find the tunnel at the end of the bridge at the end of this hole" problem. Bummer. I hate it when that happens. Is there an easier way than -O0 to revert back to the old behavior? Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2506 On Jun 22, 2005, at 2:59 PM, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > ------- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org > 2005-06-22 18:59 ------- > > Ah, the old "can't find the tunnel at the end of the bridge at the end > of this > hole" problem. Bummer. I hate it when that happens. > > Is there an easier way than -O0 to revert back to the old behavior? yes -fno-tree-salias. -- Pinski Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE in
first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2506
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 19:02 +0000, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-06-22 19:02 -------
> Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2506
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2005, at 2:59 PM, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> >
> > ------- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
> > 2005-06-22 18:59 -------
> >
> > Ah, the old "can't find the tunnel at the end of the bridge at the end
> > of this
> > hole" problem. Bummer. I hate it when that happens.
> >
> > Is there an easier way than -O0 to revert back to the old behavior?
>
> yes -fno-tree-salias.
>
No, that won't help either :)
There is no way to revert to the old behavior, you'd have to add flags
for PTA, which will break the SSA path, since we rely on it)
Can somebody do a binary search and find out what patch or patches broke this? (In reply to comment #11) > Can somebody do a binary search and find out what patch or patches broke this? No need to as it is obvious what caused it as the person who caused it already commented on this, it was introduced when tree-ssa-structalias.c was added. 2005-06-08 Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> * Makefile.in (OBJS-common): Add tree-ssa-structalias.o. .... Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE in
first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2506
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 20:13 +0000, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-22 20:13 -------
>
> Can somebody do a binary search and find out what patch or patches broke this?
>
>
I know what broke it.
It was the structalias commit i did when it was added to the mainline.
I'll fix it in the next few days.
mine The patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg02173.html combined with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg02246.html should fix the bugs. (Sorry for the delay, i hit some latent issues in the C++ FE while fixing these, which is what the second patch fixes). *** Bug 22096 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Subject: Bug 22071 CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc Module name: gcc Changes by: dberlin@gcc.gnu.org 2005-07-01 19:45:24 Modified files: gcc : ChangeLog tree-ssa-structalias.c Added files: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa: pr22071.C Log message: 2005-06-29 Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> Fix PR tree-optimization/22071 * tree-ssa-structalias.c (offset_overlaps_with_access): New function. (get_constraint_for_component_ref): Use it. Patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.9309&r2=2.9310 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.8&r2=2.9 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr22071.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1 Fixed. |