From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14885 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2006 17:29:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14841 invoked by uid 48); 19 Jul 2006 17:29:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060719172901.14840.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/27882] [4.1/4.2 regression] segfault in ipa-inline.c, if (e->callee->local.disregard_inline_limits In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg01527.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #26 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 17:29 ------- Well, I don't like much the limiting of inlining in recursive functions (where it is rather interesting) and I can't convince myself that the second patch is safe (ie the cycle don't have to be in consetuctive entries in the postorder I would say). I will test patch that simply make the array GGC root.... Thanks for looking into this, Honza -- hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27882