From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19812 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2014 19:42:10 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 19768 invoked by uid 48); 13 Jan 2014 19:42:07 -0000 From: "toralf.foerster at gmx dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/54694] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr, at dwarf2out.c:2387 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:42:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: debug X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.6.3 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: toralf.foerster at gmx dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.4 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-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg01394.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D54694 --- Comment #16 from Toralf F=C3=B6rster --- (In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #15) > So one > can also fix the "problem" by upgrading from qemu-kvm-1.1 to qemu-1.7. app-emulation/qemu1.4.2 doesn't show the error >>From gcc-bugs-return-440253-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Jan 13 19:52:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28468 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2014 19:52:18 -0000 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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28448 invoked by uid 48); 13 Jan 2014 19:52:15 -0000 From: "mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/56344] ICE for program with very large structs returned by value Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:52:00 -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-Version: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg01395.txt.bz2 Content-length: 564 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56344 --- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Georg from comment #11) > For clarity, just asking: Does this mean that > > 1. if I compile a program on HOST with bit size N, > for a TARGET with bit size M, then gcc will sorry() > just in case the object passed is larger than 1<<30, > irrespective of N and M? Here we are looking at HOST bits-per-int. > 2. Would this need to be documented per implementation? I don't believe so, it's not implementation-defined behavior.