From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26220 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2010 11:31:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 26139 invoked by uid 48); 5 Aug 2010 11:31:06 -0000 Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100805113106.26138.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "bernds 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: 2010-08/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #56 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-05 11:31 ------- Created an attachment (id=21400) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21400&action=view) A patch to aid debugging This patch should help pinpoint exactly what went wrong. It adds a dbg-cnt to the code in question. If you could experiment with passing -fdbg-cnt=bug:N to the compiler, where N is an integer value, using a binary search you should arrive relatively quickly at a value of N where the generated code is OK for N but fails for N + 1. Then, could you attach good/bad assembly files and debug dumps? Just the .expand, .combine and .ira dumps initially would be helpful if we want to save disk space here. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970