[Bug bootstrap/14671] [3.3/3.4 regression] caller-save.c:491: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

["rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de  2004-05-26 20:36 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 regression] caller-save.c:491:
 internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2004-05-26 19:24 -------
> Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 regression] caller-save.c:491: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
> 
> "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> 
> | No, Richard discovered other regressions in the POOMA testsuite that were
> 
> My understanding has been that, your proposed patch would trigger those
> regressions.  Apparently, thta would not be the case.  Which means, I
> would need a summary from someone like you or Richard, but as balanced
> as possible :-).

The original long standing POOMA regressions were fixed by Eric.  Many 
thanks to that!

The new regression caused by Dave backporting rth's patch on 04/24 is 
unrelated and was detected by me only because I did a full regression 
run on the POOMA tests with the (appearantly) fixed compiler.  These 
regressions are against 3.3.3, and I suspect not only POOMA will trigger 
this (its actually five tests that are failing due to gcc ICEing).  As 
the failure can easily be fixed by reverting patches that do not fix 
regressions to older releases I seriously propose doing so.

But it's your call Gaby, and I personally won't be unhappy, because I 
fully switched to using 3.4 already and even have reverted rth's patch 
in my local tree.  But I suspect that not everybody is building gccs on 
a daily basis like me :)

> | introduced by Dave backporting rth's patch on 04/24.  Therefore they will be
> | regressions in GCC 3.3.4 with regard to GCC 3.3.3 if the former is released in
> | the current state (my patch is totally unrelated here).  I think they deserve
> | some consideration because they are _serious_ IMHO.
> 
> I'm not saying I don't consider them.  For the record, I consider
> regressions, by default, as serious 

So this would be serious then.

Richard.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14671