From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-370890-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2842 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2011 15:29:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 2825 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Oct 2011 15:29:19 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:29:05 +0000
From: "matz at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/50741] [4.7 Regression] remove_unused_locals causes seg fault
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:29:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: matz at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-50741-4-fBKPYf0jqy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50741-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50741-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg01634.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50741

Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-17 15:28:47 UTC ---
And of course, it's the ctor cloning:

DECL_CONTEXT of _rL_53 is <function_decl 0x7ffff53db000 A>,
but current_function_decl is <function_decl 0x7ffff53db200 __base_ctor>.

So it's similar to PR50640, in that the initializers of statics declared
in different functions aren't walked.  That's reasonable assuming that
such initializers are walked when the declaring function is handled (which
is reasonable to expect, as otherwise the initializer couldn't have been
known).  But here the cloning and rewriting gets into our way.