This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/12454] [tree-ssa] Regression in g++.dg/parse/stack1.C
- From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 8 Mar 2004 01:32:57 -0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/12454] [tree-ssa] Regression in g++.dg/parse/stack1.C
- References: <20030930065717.12454.rth@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-08 01:32 -------
Note now (with sibling call on the tree level, some functions are not sibcalled, already
filed another bug for it): the backtrace looks like this:
#1 0x0013daec in c_gimplify_expr (expr_p=0x74, pre_p=0x410d3400, post_p=
0x410c4a80) at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc-tree-ssa/gcc/gcc/c-simplify.c:1015
#2 0x0013daec in c_gimplify_expr (expr_p=0xbf80030c, pre_p=0x410d3400, post_p=
0x410c4a80) at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc-tree-ssa/gcc/gcc/c-simplify.c:1015
#3 0x00108bc4 in cp_gimplify_expr (expr_p=0xbf80030c, pre_p=0xbf800218, post_p=
0xbf80021c) at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc-tree-ssa/gcc/gcc/cp/cp-simplify.c:163
#4 0x0024373c in gimplify_expr (expr_p=0xbf80030c, pre_p=0x1, post_p=0x0,
gimple_test_f=0xf, fallback=fb_none) at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc-tree-ssa/gcc/gcc/
gimplify.c:3030
#5 0x00246e88 in gimplify_stmt (stmt_p=0x7b4c80) at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc-tree-ssa/
gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:2912
#6 0x0013bc0c in c_gimplify_stmt (stmt_p=0xbf80030c) at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc-tree-
ssa/gcc/gcc/c-simplify.c:325
#7 0x0013daec in c_gimplify_expr (expr_p=0xbf800218, pre_p=0x410d3400, post_p=
0x410c4a80) at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc-tree-ssa/gcc/gcc/c-simplify.c:1015
#8 0x00108bc4 in cp_gimplify_expr (expr_p=0xe337c8, pre_p=0xbf800488, post_p=
0xbf80048c) at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc-tree-ssa/gcc/gcc/cp/cp-simplify.c:163
#9 0x0024373c in gimplify_expr (expr_p=0xe337c8, pre_p=0x1, post_p=0x0,
gimple_test_f=0xf, fallback=fb_none) at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc-tree-ssa/gcc/gcc/
gimplify.c:3030
Another way to fix this part of the back trace is define the LANGHOOK to return the enum,
I am testing a patch for that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12454