From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2964 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2007 16:22:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 2905 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2007 16:22:07 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20071121162207.2904.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/34171] [4.3 Regression] Segfault in df_chain_remove_problem with -O3 on alpha In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "spark at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg01989.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 16:22 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Segfault in df_chain_remove_problem > with -O3 on alpha > > So it means the basic block has been deleted. > > I want to see what happens if I consolidate all the > out_of_date_transfer_functions bitmaps into one. Seongbae, do you > remember experimenting with anything like that? > > Paolo Not really. I agree that it's most likely a bb being deleted though. I guess somebody will have to trace through using a debugger I'll try to build a cross to alpha and see if I can reproduce the problem today. -- spark at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |spark at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34171