[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  2004-05-28 10:48 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 regression] caller-save.c:491:
 internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

On Fri, 28 May 2004, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:

>
> ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2004-05-28 03:05 -------
> Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 regression] caller-save.c:491: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
>
> "dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>
> | ------- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2004-05-28 01:34 -------
> | Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 regression] caller-save.c:491: int
> |
> | > | This appears to be because alias_invariant was not GC allocated.  I
> | > | think the patch that I posted earlier today will fix this.  It's basically
> | > | the same as that applied to the trunk except that in 3.3 the arrays are
> | > | over allocated to allow for expansion during loop_optimize.
> | >
> | > Thanks for the additional information.  Please could you give me a
> | > link to the patch that you proposed for 3.3.x?  Thanks.
> |
> | Here is the patch that I propose.  It uses ggc_alloc_cleared because
> | the multiplication is already done in init_alias_analysis.  I have
> | added the "rtx *" cast for K&R compatibility.
> |
> | I have built the testcase provided with PR15660 and the current version
> | of the pooma-2.4.0 with -O2 -funroll-loops.  However, the triggering
> | of collection probably depends on the amount of memory in the test
> | machine.  So, Richard should test the patch and see if it resolves
> | his PR.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Richard --
>
>   Please can you test the patch?

It works.  Together with Erics (second) proposed patch to PR13653 POOMA
is now regression-free with gcc 3.3!

Thanks,

Richard.


-- 


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