From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3567 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2012 23:29:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 2850 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2012 23:28:48 -0000 From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/55388] [4.8 regression] ICE in int_mode_for_mode at stor-layout.c:423 breaks sparc64-linux bootstrap Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:29:00 -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: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 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: 2012-11/txt/msg02101.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388 --- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 23:28:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > Created attachment 28757 [details] > preprocessed libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/dyncast.cc > > Full configuration options: > /mnt/scratch/gcc-4.8-r193687/configure --prefix=/mnt/scratch/install48 > --with-gmp=/home/mikpe/pkgs/linux-sparc64/gmp-5.0.5 > --with-mpfr=/home/mikpe/pkgs/linux-sparc64/mpfr-3.1.1 > --with-mpc=/home/mikpe/pkgs/linux-sparc64/mpc-1.0.1 --enable-multilib > --disable-plugin --disable-lto --disable-nls --enable-threads=posix > --enable-checking=release --disable-libmudflap --enable-languages=c,c++ > --build=sparc-unknown-linux --target=sparc-unknown-linux --with-cpu=ultrasparc > --enable-targets=all --disable-libsanitizer Thanks. After trying and failing to convince it to fail in cross environment, it finally dawned on me that the failure was during stage 2, so presumably this is a miscompile of cc1plus. Sorry for the runaround. I'll try to reproduce the failure on gcc62, but I'm guessing it will take a while to reach the failure point.