From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20815 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2013 13:12:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 18565 invoked by uid 48); 14 Mar 2013 13:11:57 -0000 From: "andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/56618] New: inline assembler with too many lines causes ICE in account_size_time, at ipa-inline-analysis.c Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:12:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: andi-gcc at firstfloor dot 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: 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: 2013-03/txt/msg01075.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56618 Bug #: 56618 Summary: inline assembler with too many lines causes ICE in account_size_time, at ipa-inline-analysis.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org ReportedBy: andi-gcc@firstfloor.org A 6.4 mio lines inline assembler statement (happened in some auto generated real code) causes an overflow in the inliner cost estimation per cpu, resulting in a ICE. Reproducer #!/usr/bin/python print "int foo(void) {" print " asm(" for i in range(6400000): print r' "\n"' print " );" print "}" ./longasm.py > l.c gcc l.c Observed back to 4.7 at least, but much older compilers should be ok. So it's a regression Patch has been posted at http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg50027.html There was some discussion, but no approval