[Bug other/63630] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2122. unable to find a register to spill in class 'POINTER_REGS'

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63630

Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[5.0 Regression] ICE: in    |ICE: in spill_failure, at
                   |spill_failure, at           |reload1.c:2122. unable to
                   |reload1.c:2122. unable to   |find a register to spill in
                   |find a register to spill in |class 'POINTER_REGS'
                   |class 'POINTER_REGS'        |

--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #7)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> > gcc-5 branch is closed; is this bug still valid for newer branches?
> 
> Reload flaws are usually very "instable" w.r.t. to the test case(s) that
> thrigger them.  I really can't tell whether the artefact is still present on
> source level or has already been fixed or been supersed by re-design.
> 
> For a definite answer, one would have to analyse the issue with a gcc
> version + test case that triggers the bug and then track the respective
> source and how it changed in the remainder...

(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #8)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> > gcc-5 branch is closed; is this bug still valid for newer branches?
> 
> ...and for such "spill fails" it's impossible to tell, at least for me,
> whether they are distinct issues or duplictes of each other.
> 
> Even with newer versions of the compiler, some optimization issues might be
> caused by too much spilling. At least that's what I'd infer from reading
> .reload dumps.  So there is still issues with spilling in newer versions,
> even if they are no ICEs.
> 
> Moreover, register selection if often not optimal.  The old lreg / greg was
> much smarter in that regard.

OK, so I guess I'll leave this open and just remove the [5.0 regression] marker
from the title then