From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-486783-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 82442 invoked by alias); 20 May 2015 11:27:44 -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 81477 invoked by uid 55); 20 May 2015 11:27:40 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/66038] [5 regression] (stage 2) build/genmatch segfaults in operand::gen_transform (gcc/hash-table.h:223)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:27:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-66038-4-HfnEWxsXT3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66038-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66038-4@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: 2015-05/txt/msg01623.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038

--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, dougmencken at gmail dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
> 
> --- Comment #14 from Douglas Mencken <dougmencken at gmail dot com> ---
> sizeof(hashval_t) = 4, CHAR_BIT = 8
> 
> Just checked it manually. Built with patch subset, genmatch problem is here
> again. It isn't related to changes in hash_table_mod1 & hash_table_mod2.
> 
> What's left? abort() replaced by gcc_checking_assert()?

Well, it shouldn't segfault in this case either (well - maybe we
replace gcc_checking_assert () with gcc_unreachable () with
--disable-checking).  Indeed we do.  That would explain seeing
a segfault instead of an assertion failure (so yes, try without
--disable-checking)