public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/57294] [4.9 Regression] ice in remove_described_reference
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:53:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-57294-4-VdHzBLvFzL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-57294-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294

Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Actually, the interactions are a bit more convoluted, what happens is
the following:

  1. Early passes are run on function baz, references are computed for
     that function.

  2. Early passes are run on function bar.  IPA-SRA triggers and
     changes the call statement in function baz.  This means that the
     recorded pointer to the statement in the symbol table is stale.

  3. During inlining we ask ipa_find_reference to find the reference
     corresponding to the correct statement and of course do not get
     anything, which triggers an assert.

I've confirmed this is the case by putting a call to
cgraph_rebuild_references into convert_callers_for_node and it "fixes"
the issue.  But of course that could be quite expensive.

I'll revisit my efforts to remove IPA-SRA completely, this is another
piece of motivation but I am not entirely sure what to do about this
in the short term.  Probably update references in IPA-SRA.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-05-17 16:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-15 16:17 [Bug c/57294] New: " dcb314 at hotmail dot com
2013-05-15 19:57 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57294] [4.9 Regression] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-16  8:47 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-16 14:05 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-17 16:53 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2013-05-17 22:12 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2013-05-24 15:27 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-24 15:37 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-57294-4-VdHzBLvFzL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).