This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LTO ICE in D Frontend
- From: Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:52:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: LTO ICE in D Frontend
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CABOHX+exHdkqEcVn=W98T9CA-j1AR+smDj+Uj-ryGidTqo0tVg at mail dot gmail dot com> <07ba1b9f-eb72-461e-b466-309e15519082 at email dot android dot com> <CABOHX+d4gEDY77zGUoB=Y7KUBFPhbbKsyCeBLVYoEp0W6ux94Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc1YuJf9H1r__EGtAjy1EDdraSxUSb4g95P1uCyxoBS4NA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 10 July 2014 10:01, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
>> On 10 July 2014 08:26, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On July 10, 2014 8:31:54 AM CEST, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I'm trying to get to the bottom of a bug when using the D front-end
>>>>with -flto.
>>>>
>>>>When compiling anything, it always ICEs at in
>>>>streamer_get_pickled_tree, at tree-streamer-in.c.
>>>>
>>>>The of it appears to be that the LTO frontend seems to never retrieve
>>>>what it is expected to find. But I don't know what could be missing
>>>>from the code generation on my side to sort that out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The following minimal test that yields an ICE.
>>>>---
>>>>extern(C) int test = void;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I had set a breakpoint at hash_tree and looked at debug_tree output
>>>>from an equivalent program in C++, but nothing stands out as wrong
>>>>here to me.
>>>>
>>>>Any insight would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>// D
>>>>DECL_NAME:
>>>> <identifier_node 0x7ffff66981b8 test>
>>>>
>>>>DECL_CONTEXT: (null_tree)
>>>
>>> This should have a translation unit decl here.
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>
>>
>> I've been avoiding doing that for the last few years. Doesn't
>> progress any further the problem though. It looks like the LTO
>> front-end ICE's before it even attempts to read the decl context.
>>
>> Getting an ERROR_MARK when expecting an IDENTIFIER_NODE.
>>
>> Something not right with the DECL_NAME?
>
> It rather sounds like sth out-of-sync somewhere. Typical fronend
> issues are lang-specific tree codes leaking into LTO but that usually
> has a different kind of fallout.
>
> How is the D frontend integrated? Is it done "regularly", that is,
> in-tree? It's important that the all-tree.def generated at build time
> is consistent when building the D and the lto frontend.
>
Yep, all-tree.def should be consistent between the two. d/d-tree.def
is included in the generated all-tree.def file. In my example though,
only core tree codes are used, and I would have thought that they
should be unaffected by the language tree codes (that have higher code
numbers).
Regards
Iain