[Bug c++/32950] New: -O1 and -O2 options cause internal compiler error

[Bug c++/32950] New: -O1 and -O2 options cause internal compiler error

[Max dot Moorkamp at gmx dot net]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1737 bytes --]

Hi,

the -O1 and -O2 options cause an internal compiler error in my newly compiled
g++ 4.2.1. Omitting this option compiles without any apparent problems and the
ubuntu 06/10 g++, i.e. gcc version 4.1.2 20060928 (prerelease) (Ubuntu
4.1.1-13ubuntu5), also compiles it fine, with and without the -O2 or -O1.
I still have the old g++ installed in the standard location.

Here is the output of gcc -v

Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,treelang --prefix=/usr
--enable-shared --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
--without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --enable-nls
--program-suffix=-4.1 --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-mpfr --enable-checking=release i486-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.2 20060928 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.1-13ubuntu5)

my command line was

/opt/gcc4.2.1/bin/g++-4.2 -O2 -c -save-temps bug2.cpp

and produced this output

bug2.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
bug2.cpp:16: internal compiler error: in convert_move, at expr.c:363
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.


-- 
           Summary: -O1 and -O2 options cause internal compiler error
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.2.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: Max dot Moorkamp at gmx dot net
 GCC build triplet: i486-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: i486-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i486-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug c++/32950] -O1 and -O2 options cause internal compiler error

[Max dot Moorkamp at gmx dot net]

------- Comment #1 from Max dot Moorkamp at gmx dot net  2007-07-31 17:57 -------
Created an attachment (id=14000)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14000&action=view)
the testcase


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] -O1 and -O2 options cause internal compiler error

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-31 18:05 -------
This works on the trunk on i386-apple-darwin.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-27 20:06 -------
Confirmed. Reduced testcase that crashes on i686-pc-linux-gnu when compiled
with "-march=i386 -O" or "-march=i486 -O":

===========================================
struct A
{
  __complex__ double c;
};

struct B
{
  A a;
  B(A x) : a(x) {}
  void foo();
};

void bar()
{
  B b = A();
  B(b).foo();
}
===========================================

The bug is present since GCC 4.1.0, but seems to be fixed on mainline.


-- 

reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|                            |ice-on-valid-code, monitored
      Known to fail|                            |4.1.0 4.1.2 4.2.0 4.2.2
      Known to work|                            |4.0.0 4.0.4 4.3.0
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-12-27 20:06:31
               date|                            |
            Summary|-O1 and -O2 options cause   |[4.1/4.2 regression] ICE
                   |internal compiler error     |with __complex__ double
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.2.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-02-01 16:54 -------
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.3                       |4.2.4


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-19 20:23 -------
4.2.4 is being released, changing milestones to 4.2.5.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.4                       |4.2.5


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.2 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-07-04 22:47 -------
Closing 4.1 branch.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.1/4.2 regression] ICE    |[4.2 regression] ICE with
                   |with __complex__ double     |__complex__ double


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.2 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-03-30 22:12 -------
Closing 4.2 branch, fixed in 4.3.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
      Known to fail|4.1.0 4.1.2 4.2.0 4.2.2     |4.1.0 4.1.2 4.2.0 4.2.2
                   |                            |4.2.5
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|4.2.5                       |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-06 20:32 -------
The bug reappeared between 2009-05-22 and 2009-05-29 on the trunk.


-- 

reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |
            Summary|[4.2 regression] ICE with   |[4.5 regression] ICE with
                   |__complex__ double          |__complex__ double
   Target Milestone|4.3.0                       |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-06-06 22:16 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> The bug reappeared between 2009-05-22 and 2009-05-29 on the trunk.
> 

That is why we shouldn't close a bug report without checking
in a testcase.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2009-06-06 22:22 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__
 double

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:

> That is why we shouldn't close a bug report without checking
> in a testcase.

Closing a branch is already a full day's work without adding checking for 
testcases on trunk and adding them as needed to the mix.  I advise adding 
them at the point of asserting that the bug is fixed on trunk rather than 
the possibly much later point of closing the bug when all earlier branches 
are closed.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-06-07 13:26 -------
It is caused by revision 147980:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00959.html


-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mjambor at suse dot cz


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-07 13:35 -------
Subject: Bug 32950

Author: hjl
Date: Sun Jun  7 13:35:05 2009
New Revision: 148244

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148244
Log:
2009-06-07  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        PR middle-end/32950
        * g++.dg/torture/pr32950.C: New.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr32950.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-07 13:38 -------
Subject: Bug 32950

Author: hjl
Date: Sun Jun  7 13:38:38 2009
New Revision: 148245

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148245
Log:
2009-06-07  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        Backport from mainline:
        2009-06-07  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        PR middle-end/32950
        * g++.dg/torture/pr32950.C: New.

Added:
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr32950.C
      - copied unchanged from r148244,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr32950.C
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-07 13:40 -------
Subject: Bug 32950

Author: hjl
Date: Sun Jun  7 13:39:54 2009
New Revision: 148246

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148246
Log:
2009-06-07  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        Backport from mainline:
        2009-06-07  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        PR middle-end/32950
        * g++.dg/torture/pr32950.C: New.

Added:
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr32950.C
      - copied unchanged from r148245,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr32950.C
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-07 14:41 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> It is caused by revision 147980:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00959.html
> 

Revision 147978 also does not work if you compile the testcase with
the -fno-tree-sra switch.

New SRA uncovers this problem because it sees the structure containing
only a  single field  always accessed  as a structure  and never  as a
scalar and so  does not scalarize it.  Something  goes wrong later on,
probably when  expanding to RTL.  Unfortunately, I  cannot help fixing
that.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-07 15:55 -------
Wait, (In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > It is caused by revision 147980:
> > 
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00959.html
> > 
> 
> Revision 147978 also does not work if you compile the testcase with
> the -fno-tree-sra switch.
> 
> New SRA uncovers this problem because it sees the structure containing
> only a  single field  always accessed  as a structure  and never  as a
> scalar and so  does not scalarize it.  Something  goes wrong later on,
> probably when  expanding to RTL.  Unfortunately, I  cannot help fixing
> that.

I think that should always scalarize as it is a single field as it is always
better to scalarize single field structs (except maybe bitfield ones).

-- Pinski


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-08 17:49 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> Wait, (In reply to comment #15)
> > (In reply to comment #11)
> > > It is caused by revision 147980:
> > > 
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00959.html
> > > 
> > 
> > Revision 147978 also does not work if you compile the testcase with
> > the -fno-tree-sra switch.
> > 
> > New SRA uncovers this problem because it sees the structure containing
> > only a  single field  always accessed  as a structure  and never  as a
> > scalar and so  does not scalarize it.  Something  goes wrong later on,
> > probably when  expanding to RTL.  Unfortunately, I  cannot help fixing
> > that.
> 
> I think that should always scalarize as it is a single field as it is always
> better to scalarize single field structs (except maybe bitfield ones).

Well, Richi seems to disagree:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg00637.html

I am not  sure myself, I believe  that there are not so  many cases in
which  this would  prove  beneficial.  When  there  are no  operations
performed on the  scalars, the only situation I can  think of would be
some extensive copy propagation.

Martin


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-08 17:50 -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> I am not  sure myself, I believe  that there are not so  many cases in
> which  this would  prove  beneficial.  When  there  are no  operations
> performed on the  scalars, the only situation I can  think of would be
> some extensive copy propagation.

Or the case where expand does something stupid which does happen one time or
another.  I think for unions it should always happen no matter what (because
unions have the mode set to BLKmode).

-- Pinski


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[sje at cup dot hp dot com]

------- Comment #19 from sje at cup dot hp dot com  2009-06-12 23:17 -------
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01023.html for a possible
patch and for a question about two different approaches.


-- 

sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |sje at cup dot hp dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

[sje at cup dot hp dot com]

------- Comment #20 from sje at cup dot hp dot com  2009-06-17 15:41 -------
I forgot to put the defect number in the ChangeLog entry but this is fixed with
r148614, a patch to expr.c.  


-- 

sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950