From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13492 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2012 17:48:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 13445 invoked by uid 48); 22 Nov 2012 17:47:39 -0000 From: "ebotcazou 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: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:48:00 -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: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status AssignedTo Target Milestone 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/msg02147.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388 Eric Botcazou changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ebotcazou at gcc dot |gnu.org |gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0 --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-22 17:47:38 UTC --- > It's caused by r193599: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-11/msg00546.html Yep, the problem is that alias.c:nonoverlapping_component_refs_p considers that accesses to bitfields never overlap with accesses to other components... I also think that the size handling in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos might need to be further refined, now that bitfields are handled: /* Respect mode size. */ attrs.size_known_p = defattrs->size_known_p; attrs.size = defattrs->size; /* ??? Is this really necessary? We probably should always get the size from the type below. */ I don't see how the final size can be smaller than the mode size.