From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4326 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2014 20:51:16 -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 3949 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jul 2014 20:51:08 -0000 From: "ppluzhnikov at google dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/61723] [C++11] ICE in contains_struct_check Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:51:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ppluzhnikov at google dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jason at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.10.0 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: 2014-07/txt/msg01025.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D61723 --- Comment #6 from Paul Pluzhnikov --- It turns out that the original unreduced test case does not error on trunk @r212277; it only ICEs on gcc-4.8 and gcc-4.9 branches. But once I creduced it using 4.9, the reduced test also ICEd on trunk. I have just verified that the latest 4.9 @r212536 crashes like so on non-reduced test: gcc-svn-4_9-r212536/bin/g++ -c -std=3Dc++11 t.ii -O2 t.cc: In function =E2=80=98ZZZZ=E2=80=99: t.cc:22:24: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault 0xb947ff crash_signal ../../gcc/toplev.c:337 0x952096 fold_comparison ../../gcc/fold-const.c:9074 0x95be35 fold_binary_loc(unsigned int, tree_code, tree_node*, tree_node*, tree_node*) ../../gcc/fold-const.c:13563 0xbca30d cleanup_control_expr_graph ../../gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c:112 0xbca30d cleanup_control_flow_bb ../../gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c:187 0xbca30d cleanup_tree_cfg_bb ../../gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c:630 0xbcbd48 cleanup_tree_cfg_1 ../../gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c:675 0xbcbd48 cleanup_tree_cfg_noloop ../../gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c:731 0xbcbd48 cleanup_tree_cfg() ../../gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c:786 0xaea194 execute_function_todo ../../gcc/passes.c:1811 0xaeaa83 execute_todo ../../gcc/passes.c:1887 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. This appears to be a different ICE. Should I reduce it? >>From gcc-bugs-return-456435-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Jul 15 21:08:11 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11571 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2014 21:08:10 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11433 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jul 2014 21:08:04 -0000 From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/61723] [C++11] ICE in contains_struct_check Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:08:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jason at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.10.0 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: 2014-07/txt/msg01026.txt.bz2 Content-length: 260 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61723 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #6) > This appears to be a different ICE. > Should I reduce it? Please. And open a new PR for it.