* [Bug tree-optimization/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
@ 2006-09-27 17:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-27 18:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-27 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
2006-09-27 17:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29254] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-27 18:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-27 18:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-27 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Severity|normal |minor
Keywords| |error-recovery, ice-on-
| |invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
2006-09-27 17:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29254] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-27 18:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-27 18:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-27 21:31 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-27 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-27 18:34 -------
Here is a reduced testcase:
typedef struct _GList GList;
typedef struct _KvpFrame KvpFrame;
typedef struct _KvpValue KvpValue;
struct _KvpValue
{
int type;
GList *list;
};
kvp_glist_compare (GList * list1,GList * list2)
{
while (list1)
kvp_value_compare ();
}
kvp_frame_for_each_slot (KvpFrame * f, void *data){}
kvp_value_compare (KvpValue * kva, KvpValue * kvb)
{
switch (kva->type)
{
case 0:
kvp_glist_compare (kva->list, kvb->list);
}
}
kvp_frame_compare (const KvpFrame * fb)
{
int status;
kvp_frame_for_each_slot ((KvpFrame *) fb,&status);
}
-----
But I am thinking there are two bugs here, first the warning I think it bogus
as there is a cast in the argument for the function. Second is the ICE.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|error-recovery, ice-on- |
|invalid-code |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-27 18:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-27 21:31 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
2006-09-28 10:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: lopezibanez at gmail dot com @ 2006-09-27 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-09-27 21:31 -------
Is this testcase better?
------------------------
list_compare (int * list1)
{
if (list1)
value_compare ();
}
func1 (int * f){}
value_compare (int * a)
{
if (a)
list_compare (a);
}
func2 (const int * fb)
{
func1 ((int *) fb);
}
----------------------------------
I was unable to reproduce the problem removing any of the 'if'. Also, I was
unable to reproduce the ICE without generating the warning about qualifiers.
Weird.
--
lopezibanez at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |lopezibanez at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-27 21:31 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
@ 2006-09-28 10:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-29 0:37 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-28 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 10:55 -------
Confirmed. The warning is correct - we emit it with explicit casts, too. But
surprisingly -Wno-cast-qual does not get rid of it.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |error-recovery, ice-
| |checking, ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-09-28 10:55:21
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-28 10:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-29 0:37 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
2006-09-29 0:53 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: lopezibanez at gmail dot com @ 2006-09-29 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-09-29 00:37 -------
Not so surprising if you check gcc/c-typeck.c line 3980. The warning is not
conditionalised to any option. What is the criteria for a warning to be emitted
always or be conditional to a given option?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-29 0:37 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
@ 2006-09-29 0:53 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
2006-10-01 23:03 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: lopezibanez at gmail dot com @ 2006-09-29 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-09-29 00:53 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Not so surprising if you check gcc/c-typeck.c line 3980. The warning is not
> conditionalised to any option. What is the criteria for a warning to be emitted
> always or be conditional to a given option?
>
Argh! I meant line 4100 (although perhaps it is the same warning, not sure).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-29 0:53 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
@ 2006-10-01 23:03 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-04 20:21 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-01 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-01 23:03 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-04 20:21 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
2006-10-05 5:08 ` [Bug middle-end/29254] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: lopezibanez at gmail dot com @ 2006-10-04 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-10-04 20:21 -------
Don't know whether it is relevant, but no ICE occurs if Werror is not used.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-04 20:21 ` lopezibanez at gmail dot com
@ 2006-10-05 5:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-09 12:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-05 5:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-05 05:08 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Don't know whether it is relevant, but no ICE occurs if Werror is not used.
Which is why I marked this as an error recovery bug. I really don't think this
should be a P1 either because we warned/errored already and we don't ICE with
checking disabled either so the users will never see the problem.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-05 5:08 ` [Bug middle-end/29254] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-09 12:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-09 16:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-09 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:24 -------
The minimal fix is to not verify_cgraph_node if errorcount || sorrycount.
Bailing out earlier has interesting side-effects it seems.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2006-09-28 10:55:21 |2006-10-09 12:24:56
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-09 12:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-09 16:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-09 16:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-15 15:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-09 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:11 -------
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-09 16:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-09 16:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-15 15:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-09 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:10 -------
Subject: Bug 29254
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 9 16:10:38 2006
New Revision: 117577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117577
Log:
2006-10-09 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR middle-end/29254
* cgraphunit.c (verify_cgraph_node): Bail out on earlier
errors.
* gcc.dg/pr29254.c: New testcase.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr29254.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/29254] [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found)
2006-09-27 16:59 [Bug tree-optimization/29254] New: [4.2 Regression] verify_cgraph_node failed (inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors found) tbm at cyrius dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-09 16:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-15 15:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-15 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-15 15:31 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Confirmed. The warning is correct - we emit it with explicit casts, too. But
> surprisingly -Wno-cast-qual does not get rid of it.
Except it is not correct and is a regression, see PR 29478.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29254
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread