From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9585 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2012 07:09:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 9568 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2012 07:09:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED 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, 18 Jun 2012 07:09:09 +0000 From: "krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:09:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: major X-Bugzilla-Who: krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg01156.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-06-18 07:09:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > I don't see how r187965 could cause this, but I do see the problem. > mark_sym_for_renaming (called via the s390 va_arg_expr expander) is called > during, well, gimplification from GENERIC. At that point SSA isn't > initialized yet, so cfun->gimple_df is still NULL, and so SYMS_TO_RENAME > gives a segfault. > > You either have to guard the call to mark_sym_for_renaming with > gimple_in_ssa_p(), or get rid of the call alltogether. I don't see how > new va_arg expressions would be generated during SSA optimizers, so the latter > solution would be safe. No other backend calls mark_sym_for_renaming either, > so just remove it. ?! You appear to have added the call to mark_sym_for_renaming with your patch. Since it isn't mentioned in the changelog perhaps it is a leftover from something else in your tree? So the solution is to revert that change? svn diff -r 187964:187965 gcc/config/s390/s390.c Index: gcc/config/s390/s390.c =================================================================== --- gcc/config/s390/s390.c (revision 187964) +++ gcc/config/s390/s390.c (revision 187965) @@ -9044,6 +9044,7 @@ lab_false = create_artificial_label (UNKNOWN_LOCATION); lab_over = create_artificial_label (UNKNOWN_LOCATION); addr = create_tmp_var (ptr_type_node, "addr"); + mark_sym_for_renaming (addr); t = fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (reg), size_int (max_reg)); t = build2 (GT_EXPR, boolean_type_node, reg, t);