From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 77C7F384A07D; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:40:39 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 77C7F384A07D From: "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/100788] Internal compiler error related to #line macros(?) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:40:38 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: gcov-profile X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:40:39 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100788 --- Comment #12 from Martin Li=C5=A1ka --- (In reply to seberg from comment #11) > Does that mean that fixing the `#line` directives (or inserting additional > ones) should be able to fix the issue? (Or work around it, if you consid= er > it a bug.) Yes. I've got an approved patch for the current master: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571593.html For older releases, I consider relaxation of the assert. >=20 > I tried to figure out where the `#line` directives currently causes this > situation, and add new ones in some places in the templater. But I don't > really see where it goes wrong. That is, unless `#if 0` causes the > directives within the block to be ignored? Well, the problematic function is: numpy/core/src/multiarray/einsum_sumprod.c.src: In function =E2=80=98longdouble_sum_of_products_contig_three=E2=80=99: So one should see a line directives in the function body that cause it ends before it begins.=