[Bug c++/46304] [4.5 Regression] g++ crashes with ICE in bitmap_first_set_bit, at bitmap.c:770
rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Fri Nov 5 10:49:00 GMT 2010
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46304
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |wrong-code
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work| |4.4.4, 4.6.0
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
Summary|g++ crashes with ICE in |[4.5 Regression] g++
|bitmap_first_set_bit, at |crashes with ICE in
|bitmap.c:770 |bitmap_first_set_bit, at
| |bitmap.c:770
Known to fail| |4.5.0, 4.5.1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-05 10:48:55 UTC ---
Confirmed. Happens as we go into SSA form.
#2 0x00000000007ed310 in bitmap_first_set_bit (a=0x19c13e8)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/bitmap.c:770
770 gcc_assert (elt);
(gdb)
#3 0x0000000000c61587 in set_livein_block (var=0x7ffff7ef3d20,
bb=0x7ffff5b318f0)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/tree-into-ssa.c:550
550 int def_block_index = bitmap_first_set_bit (db_p->def_blocks);
when visiting
(gdb) call debug_gimple_stmt (stmt)
D.2447 = COMPLEX_EXPR <D.2444, 2.0e+0>;
and the bitmap is empty. D.2444 is not set before.
void ClassA<T>::setSize() [with T = __complex__ double] (struct ClassA * const
this)
{
complex double D.2447;
complex double * D.2446;
<bb 2>:
D.2446 = this->data;
D.2447 = COMPLEX_EXPR <D.2444, 2.0e+0>;
*D.2446 = D.2447;
return;
}
it looks like this caller to bitmap_first_set_bit assumes it's ok to
call it on an empty bitmap where it should return -1.
It's interesting though that 4.6 for the above has
void ClassA<T>::setSize() [with T = __complex__ double] (struct ClassA * this)
{
complex double D.2421;
double D.2420;
complex double * D.2419;
<bb 2>:
D.2419 = this->data;
D.2420 = 1.0e+0 + 0.0;
D.2421 = COMPLEX_EXPR <D.2420, 2.0e+0>;
*D.2419 = D.2421;
return;
}
which shows it's also really a wrong-code bug.
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list