From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 2E66C3858436; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 18:55:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2E66C3858436
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1689792943;
	bh=yDdGFpVQuGc1SDVKbR2RVh+mTNuYMYWzHD9oZCA8fIA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=UOE907bfXtfsPwm70C6Hf/87u3BcJsQQET0HbWPjrhTBnq2Kk8cCQh3zphtMIwumE
	 VQRcJrGij034YW9j/KiZOPiWaAh1JVR1gUYYgFoxM9mdluY4etzqgeMt6l0FYGWFwz
	 pdrEtoRky2PLlelGacDmXUDsXuir9FHA6+vfTy8Y=
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/110315] [13 Regression] g++ crashes with a
 segmentation fault while compiling a large const std::vector of std::string
 since r13-6566-ge0324e2629e25a90
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 18:55:42 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amacleod at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110315-4-ChpCQsD9qQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110315-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110315-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110315

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > Confirmed.  Not sure whether it's possible to backport any of the stack
> > usage reduction in ranger from trunk or whether it's other recursion
> > limiting that
> > avoids this there (besides different IL from the frontend ...).
> >=20
> > Andrew/Aldy?  The call chain is 20000 frames deep when it faults on me
> > (with a -O0 built cc1plus running in gdb).
>=20
> huh.  I am not seeing this with the current gcc 13 release branch?  or at
> least I cant get my stage 1 compiler to fail like this

hold on.. I think it was picking up the wrong code nbase.  stay tuned. :-P=