* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-29 13:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-29 19:18 ` micis at gmx dot de
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-29 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-29 13:41 -------
This was the last preprocessed source in PR 17697, I jsut reduced it.
: Search converges between 2004-07-21-trunk (#492) and 2004-07-23-trunk (#493).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |micis at gmx dot de, jakub
| |at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-09-29 13:41:56
date| |
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-29 13:42 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17724] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-29 19:18 ` micis at gmx dot de
2004-09-29 21:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: micis at gmx dot de @ 2004-09-29 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2004-09-29 19:18 -------
This ICE is caused by the patch to fix http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
id=17697
If you build a gcc without this patch you get:
src.ii: In function `int main(int, char**)':
scr.ii:7: error: Statement marked for throw, but doesn't.
D.1829_4 = D.1844_32;
src.ii:7: internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed.
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate.
With that patch you get:
src.ii: In function `int main(int, char**)':
src.ii:7: error: dominator of 4 should be 2, not 0
src.ii:7: internal compiler error: in verify_dominators, at dominance.c:860
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Michael Cieslinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-29 13:42 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17724] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-29 19:18 ` micis at gmx dot de
@ 2004-09-29 21:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-29 22:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-29 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-29 21:02 -------
Actually the ICE is no caused by that patch, we just don't get passed verify_stmts before.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-29 21:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-29 22:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-30 8:56 ` micis at gmx dot de
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-29 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-29 22:31 -------
Patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg02990.html>.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-29 22:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-30 8:56 ` micis at gmx dot de
2004-09-30 11:29 ` micis at gmx dot de
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: micis at gmx dot de @ 2004-09-30 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2004-09-30 08:56 -------
Many thanks to all gcc developers for your excellent work!
I applied your patch, bootstraped gcc (on ppc-linux-gnu), run make check and
found no new regressions.
Also my application seems to compile (it takes a lot of time)
Michael Cieslinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-30 8:56 ` micis at gmx dot de
@ 2004-09-30 11:29 ` micis at gmx dot de
2004-09-30 11:57 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: micis at gmx dot de @ 2004-09-30 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2004-09-30 11:29 -------
After compiling ~2500 files I found one where this error still occures.
Below is a reduced testcase.
/usr/local/gcc40/bin/g++40 -O2 -c -o out.o src.ii -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/gcc40/lib/gcc/powerpc-unknown-linux-
gnu/4.0.0/specs
Configured with: ../gcc40/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc40 --program-
suffix=40 --with-cpu=G5 --enable-altivec --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-
checking
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0 20040926 (experimental)
/usr/local/gcc40/libexec/gcc/powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu/4.0.0/cc1plus -
fpreprocessed src.ii -quiet -dumpbase src.ii -mcpu=G5 -auxbase-strip out.o -O2 -
version -o /tmp/ccRGaRii.s
GNU C++ version 4.0.0 20040926 (experimental) (powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 4.0.0 20040926 (experimental).
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
src.ii: In member function `int C::D()':
src.ii:11: error: dominator of 3 should be 2, not 0
src.ii:11: internal compiler error: in verify_dominators, at dominance.c:860
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Michael Cieslinski
extern char *strcpy (char* d, const char* s) throw ();
class A { public: A (); ~A (); };
inline char * B (char *s, const char *t)
{ return ::strcpy (s, t); }
class C { int D (void); int E; };
int C::D (void)
{
A aa;
try
{
char z [22];
if (this->E) B (z, "");
return 0;
}
catch (int &f) { return -1; }
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-30 11:29 ` micis at gmx dot de
@ 2004-09-30 11:57 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-01 12:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-09-30 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-30 11:57 -------
Jakub, I'm assigning this bug to you since you posted a patch for it.
Can you check if the new testcase is the same bug which still surfaces, or a
new one (for which a new PR should be opened)? Thanks.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at redhat dot com
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-30 11:57 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-10-01 12:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-07 21:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-01 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-01 12:41 -------
Well, the testcase as is certainly doesn't fail with current CVS plus
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg02990.html.
When the first line is one of:
extern char *strcpy (char* d, const char* s) throw ();
extern "C" char *strcpy (char* d, const char* s) throw ();
extern "C" char *strcpy (char* d, const char* s);
it works just fine (though probably all 4 variants should be added to the
testsuite).
But when the testcase starts with:
extern char *strcpy (char* d, const char* s);
it ICEs. The problem is different though, particularly that
delete_unreachable_blocks nor delete_basic_block called from it updates
dominators info.
IMHO either tree-cfg.c's remove_bb needs to
recount_dominator/set_immediate_dominator if changed for all preds and succs bb's
or cleanup_tree_cfg needs to set some flag when delete_unreachable_blocks returns
true and after the loop call free_dominance_info if that flag is set.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dnovillo at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-01 12:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-07 21:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-10 18:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-07 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-07 21:26 -------
Newest patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg00658.html>.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-07 21:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-10 18:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-12 7:25 ` micis at gmx dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-10 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-10 18:15 -------
Newest patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg00853.html>.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-10 18:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-12 7:25 ` micis at gmx dot de
2004-10-12 8:45 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: micis at gmx dot de @ 2004-10-12 7:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2004-10-12 07:25 -------
Whith the patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg00853.html
applied I get a new ICE when I compile ACE542:
/usr/local/gcc40/bin/g++40 -W -Wall -Wpointer-arith -fpermissive -O2 -
D_REENTRANT -DACE_HAS_AIO_CALLS -D_GNU_SOURCE -I/home/cie019/ace542-
gcc40 /ACE_wrappers -DACE_HAS_EXCEPTIONS -D__ACE_INLINE__ -I.. -c -
o .obj/Map_Test.o Map_Test.cpp -g
Map_Test.cpp: In function `void functionality_test(MAP&, size_t)':
Map_Test.cpp:44: internal compiler error: in cp_tree_equal, at /cp/tree.c:1586
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate.
But when I specify -save-temps, this ICE does not occur.
Also it does not occur if I omit "-g".
How should I proceed?
Michael Cieslinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-12 7:25 ` micis at gmx dot de
@ 2004-10-12 8:45 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-12 8:48 ` micis at gmx dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-10-12 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-12 08:45 -------
If it cannot be reproduced with --save-temps, it is probably a memory
corruption or something. I think we should do one thing at a time: once Jakub's
patch is in, we will look into the following problem. Be patient, we will get
to it :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-12 8:45 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-10-12 8:48 ` micis at gmx dot de
2004-10-13 7:22 ` micis at gmx dot de
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: micis at gmx dot de @ 2004-10-12 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2004-10-12 08:48 -------
I tried to copy all needed files in a directory and while this file set was
still not complete I got a segmentation fault when I tried to compile.
I filed a bug report bug17944
Michael Cieslinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-12 8:48 ` micis at gmx dot de
@ 2004-10-13 7:22 ` micis at gmx dot de
2004-10-13 11:27 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-13 12:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: micis at gmx dot de @ 2004-10-13 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2004-10-13 07:22 -------
The ICE is not related to this patch.
Michael Cieslinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-13 7:22 ` micis at gmx dot de
@ 2004-10-13 11:27 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-13 12:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-13 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-13 11:27 -------
Subject: Bug 17724
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: jakub@gcc.gnu.org 2004-10-13 11:27:02
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog tree-cfg.c
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt: pr17724-1.C pr17724-2.C pr17724-3.C
pr17724-4.C pr17724-5.C pr17724-6.C
Log message:
PR tree-optimization/17724
* tree-cfg.c (tree_purge_dead_eh_edges): Free dominance info.
* g++.dg/opt/pr17724-1.C: New test.
* g++.dg/opt/pr17724-2.C: New test.
* g++.dg/opt/pr17724-3.C: New test.
* g++.dg/opt/pr17724-4.C: New test.
* g++.dg/opt/pr17724-5.C: New test.
* g++.dg/opt/pr17724-6.C: New test.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.5856&r2=2.5857
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.74&r2=2.75
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.4440&r2=1.4441
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr17724-1.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr17724-2.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr17724-3.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr17724-4.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr17724-5.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr17724-6.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17724] [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related
2004-09-29 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/17724] New: [4.0 Regression] wrong dominator (eh/fold all builtins) related pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-13 11:27 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-13 12:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-13 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-13 12:22 -------
Fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17724
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread