This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/26213] [4.2 Regression] new (within last few days) infinite loop with -O1
- From: "law at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 10 Feb 2006 19:23:23 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/26213] [4.2 Regression] new (within last few days) infinite loop with -O1
- References: <bug-26213-12168@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-10 19:23 -------
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] new (within
last few days) infinite loop with -O1
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 14:24 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> ------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-10 14:24 -------
> Confirmed, the backtrace:
> #0 0x004c0784 in thread_across_edge (dummy_cond=0x41ee29f0, e=0x41ee24e0,
> handle_dominating_asserts=0 '\0', stack=0x6c9530, simplify=0x422674
> <simplify_stmt_for_jump_threading>) at
> /Users/pinskia/src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:445
> #1 0x0042359c in dom_opt_finalize_block (walk_data=0x41ee24e0, bb=0x41ee21b0)
> at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c:722
> #2 0x0042359c in dom_opt_finalize_block (walk_data=0xbffff80c, bb=0x41ee1930)
> at /Users/pinskia/src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c:722
> #3 0x0049b044 in walk_dominator_tree (walk_data=0xbffff80c, bb=0x41ee1930) at
> /Users/pinskia/src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/domwalk.c:234
> #4 0x0049aff0 in walk_dominator_tree (walk_data=0xbffff80c, bb=0x41ee1850) at
> /Users/pinskia/src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/domwalk.c:212
> #5 0x0049aff0 in walk_dominator_tree (walk_data=0xbffff80c, bb=0x41ee1770) at
> /Users/pinskia/src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/domwalk.c:212
> #6 0x0049aff0 in walk_dominator_tree (walk_data=0xbffff80c, bb=0x41ee15b0) at
> /Users/pinskia/src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/domwalk.c:212
I should have known better. It's possible to have loops in the
SSA_NAME_VALUE chain. Dumb dumb dumb.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
------- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-10 19:23 -------
Created an attachment (id=10818)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10818&action=view)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26213