From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-484572-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 79024 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2015 16:40:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 78990 invoked by uid 48); 24 Apr 2015 16:40:15 -0000
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/65818] [6 Regression] libiberty/vprintf-support.c:41:1: ICE: in expand_i fn_va_arg_1, at tree-stdarg.c:1095
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:40:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-65818-4-n97Vb5keDx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65818-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65818-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: 2015-04/txt/msg02124.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818

--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #9)
> This patch has the following new failure:
> 
> /test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr65802.C: In function 'void fn1()':
> /test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr65802.C:20:23: error: impossible
> constraint in 'asm'
> 
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr65802.C  -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr65802.C  -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr65802.C  -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors)
> 

That failure was probably already present without the patch.  (see f.i.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01482.html ).

I've rewritten the test-case in C and cleaned it up. It's now called
gcc.dg/pr65802.c.

I tested the new test-case with and without the updated patch, it passes in
both cases.