public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967
@ 2015-07-01 18:53 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 19:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/66729] " rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 more replies)
0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-01 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
Bug ID: 66729
Summary: Segfault starting with r224967
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org, dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
Target: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
Build: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
Ran in to following error starting with subject revision while trying to
bootstrap.
Config:
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/configure
--prefix=/home/pthaugen/install/gcc/gcc_hunt --enable-decimal-float
--enable-lto --with-as=/home/pthaugen/install/binutils/binutils-2.25/bin/as
--with-ld=/home/pthaugen/install/binutils/binutils-2.25/bin/ld
--with-gmp=/home/pthaugen/install/gcc-host-libs --without-ppl --without-cloog
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
/home/pthaugen/work/build/gcc/gcc_hunt/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/pthaugen/work/build/gcc/gcc_hunt/./gcc/
-B/home/pthaugen/install/gcc/gcc_hunt/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/pthaugen/install/gcc/gcc_hunt/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/home/pthaugen/install/gcc/gcc_hunt/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/include
-isystem
/home/pthaugen/install/gcc/gcc_hunt/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-include
-g -O2 -m32 -O2 -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual
-Wno-format -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-isystem ./include -fPIC -mlong-double-128 -mno-minimal-toc -g -DIN_LIBGCC2
-fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector -fPIC -mlong-double-128
-mno-minimal-toc -I. -I. -I../../.././gcc
-I/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc
-I/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/.
-I/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../gcc
-I/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../include
-I/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../libdecnumber/dpd
-I/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../libdecnumber -DHAVE_CC_TLS -o
decContext.o -MT decContext.o -MD -MP -MF decContext.dep -c
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../libdecnumber/decContext.c
In file included from
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../libdecnumber/decContext.h:246:0,
from
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../libdecnumber/decContext.c:38:
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../libdecnumber/decContext.c: In
function ‘__decContextStatusToString’:
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../libdecnumber/decContextSymbols.h:16:34:
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
#define decContextStatusToString __decContextStatusToString
^
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/libgcc/../libdecnumber/decContext.c:352:13:
note: in expansion of macro ‘decContextStatusToString’
const char *decContextStatusToString(const decContext *context) {
^
0x10d2ed5f crash_signal
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/toplev.c:366
0x117fee78 trim_filename(char const*)
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/diagnostic.c:944
0x117fff87 fancy_abort(char const*, int, char const*)
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/diagnostic.c:1340
0x111d635f inchash::add_expr(tree_node const*, inchash::hash&)
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/tree.c:7708
0x10d7b167 iterative_hash_expr
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/tree.h:4519
0x10d7e7df tree_operand_hash::hash(tree_node const*)
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/tree-hash-traits.h:33
0x10d802f7 simple_hashmap_traits<tree_operand_hash>::hash(tree_node* const&)
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/hash-map-traits.h:126
0x110c9f9f hash_map<tree_node*, vec<tree_node*, va_heap, vl_ptr>,
val_ssa_equiv_hash_traits>::get(tree_node* const&)
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/hash-map.h:141
0x110c9367 uncprop_into_successor_phis
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-uncprop.c:408
0x110c9737 uncprop_dom_walker::before_dom_children(basic_block_def*)
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-uncprop.c:495
0x11628d93 dom_walker::walk(basic_block_def*)
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/domwalk.c:183
0x110c9933 execute
/home/pthaugen/src/gcc/gcc_hunt/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-uncprop.c:544
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
>From gcc-bugs-return-491202-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Jul 01 18:58:39 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-491202-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32403 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2015 18:58:39 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32256 invoked by uid 48); 1 Jul 2015 18:58:35 -0000
From: "dje at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:58:00 -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:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dje at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-66729-4-73RvacCEwt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66729-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66729-4@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: 2015-07/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2
Content-length: 222
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idf729
--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Is this the bootstrap failure that Segher tracked to Richard Sandiford?
Richard already posted a patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-01 19:01 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 20:52 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-01 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2015-07-01
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #1)
> Is this the bootstrap failure that Segher tracked to Richard Sandiford?
> Richard already posted a patch.
Yeah, it sounds like it. I committed the patch as r225263 -- please let
me know if that didn't fix it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 19:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/66729] " rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-01 20:52 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 22:42 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-01 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
--- Comment #3 from Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #2)
> (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #1)
> > Is this the bootstrap failure that Segher tracked to Richard Sandiford?
> > Richard already posted a patch.
>
> Yeah, it sounds like it. I committed the patch as r225263 -- please let
> me know if that didn't fix it.
I still see the ICE with r225263.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 19:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/66729] " rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 20:52 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-01 22:42 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-02 19:25 ` meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-01 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #3)
> (In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #2)
> > (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #1)
> > > Is this the bootstrap failure that Segher tracked to Richard Sandiford?
> > > Richard already posted a patch.
> >
> > Yeah, it sounds like it. I committed the patch as r225263 -- please let
> > me know if that didn't fix it.
>
> I still see the ICE with r225263.
Hmm, bootstrap succeeded for me on gcc110. I used r225278, but I don't
think anything significant changed between the two.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-01 22:42 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-02 19:25 ` meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-02 21:25 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: meissner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-02 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
Michael Meissner <meissner at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner <meissner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
FWIW, I bootstrapped the compiler on the same system Pat is using internally,
and it worked (using the various configuration hacks I've developed over the
years).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-02 19:25 ` meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-02 21:25 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-03 12:24 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-02 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
--- Comment #6 from Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4)
>
> Hmm, bootstrap succeeded for me on gcc110. I used r225278, but I don't
> think anything significant changed between the two.
Mike Meissner and I ran various builds since he was not seeing any problem on
the same machine I was building on. From what I can tell, this is starting to
look like an issue when building with older compiler versions.
I can recreate the problem on machines with 4.3 and 4.4 versions of GCC as the
default distro compiler but if I modify my path so a 4.8 version of the
compiler is found first my bootstrap succeeds. Looks like gcc110 is a 4.7
distro compiler, and appears not an issue there.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-02 21:25 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-03 12:24 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-03 12:27 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-03 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #6)
> (In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4)
> >
> > Hmm, bootstrap succeeded for me on gcc110. I used r225278, but I don't
> > think anything significant changed between the two.
>
> Mike Meissner and I ran various builds since he was not seeing any problem
> on the same machine I was building on. From what I can tell, this is
> starting to look like an issue when building with older compiler versions.
>
> I can recreate the problem on machines with 4.3 and 4.4 versions of GCC as
> the default distro compiler but if I modify my path so a 4.8 version of the
> compiler is found first my bootstrap succeeds. Looks like gcc110 is a 4.7
> distro compiler, and appears not an issue there.
Thanks for narrowing it down. I tried a 4.4 compiler on gcc110 and yeah,
it fails for me too. I think the problem is due to inc_hash::add_expr
being entered with the wrong TOC pointer:
Breakpoint 1, inchash::add_expr (t=0x3fffafc8a2f0, hstate=...) at
/home/rsandifo/gcc/HEAD/gcc/gcc/tree.c:7697
7697 tclass = TREE_CODE_CLASS (code);
(gdb) p/x $r2
$1 = 0x123af688
(gdb) cond 1 $r2 != 0x123af688
(gdb) cont
Continuing.
Breakpoint 1, inchash::add_expr (t=0x3fffaf816000, hstate=...) at
/home/rsandifo/gcc/HEAD/gcc/gcc/tree.c:7697
7697 tclass = TREE_CODE_CLASS (code);
(gdb) bt
#0 inchash::add_expr (t=0x3fffaf816000, hstate=...) at
/home/rsandifo/gcc/HEAD/gcc/gcc/tree.c:7697
#1 0x0000000010ef9118 in iterative_hash_expr (tree=0x3fffaf816000, seed=0) at
/home/rsandifo/gcc/HEAD/gcc/gcc/tree.h:4519
#2 0x0000000010efc99c in tree_operand_hash::hash (t=0x3fffaf816000) at
/home/rsandifo/gcc/HEAD/gcc/gcc/tree-hash-traits.h:33
#3 0x000000001124bc7c in simple_hashmap_traits<tree_operand_hash>::hash
(h=@0x3fffffffdb30: 0x3fffaf816000)
at /home/rsandifo/gcc/HEAD/gcc/gcc/hash-map-traits.h:48
#4 0x000000001124b7f4 in hash_map<tree_node*, vec<tree_node*, va_heap,
vl_ptr>, val_ssa_equiv_hash_traits>::get (
this=0x125e0670, k=@0x3fffffffdb30: 0x3fffaf816000) at
/home/rsandifo/gcc/HEAD/gcc/gcc/hash-map.h:142
#5 0x000000001124ab3c in uncprop_into_successor_phis (bb=0x3fffaf850340)
at /home/rsandifo/gcc/HEAD/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-uncprop.c:408
So we end up loading an incorrect value of tree_code_type and thus end
up with an invalid tclass:
Dump of assembler code from 0x113575e0 to 0x11357620:
=> 0x00000000113575e0 <inchash::add_expr(tree_node const*,
inchash::hash&)+1776>: lwz r0,156(r31)
0x00000000113575e4 <inchash::add_expr(tree_node const*,
inchash::hash&)+1780>: clrldi r0,r0,32
0x00000000113575e8 <inchash::add_expr(tree_node const*,
inchash::hash&)+1784>: extsw r0,r0
0x00000000113575ec <inchash::add_expr(tree_node const*,
inchash::hash&)+1788>: ld r9,-25616(r2)
(gdb) x/1a $r2-25616
0x123b9130: 0x11f86ba0
<_ZZN3vecIP21ipa_agg_jump_function7va_heap8vl_embedE10quick_pushERKS1_E12__FUNCTION__>
(gdb) p/x tree_code_type
$2 = 0x11d9131c <tree_code_type>
(gdb) print code
$3 = ADDR_EXPR
(gdb) print tclass
$4 = 1969711199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-03 12:24 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-03 12:27 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-04 13:28 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-05 19:03 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-03 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #7)
> (gdb) print code
> $3 = ADDR_EXPR
> (gdb) print tclass
> $4 = 1969711199
Er, to be clear, this was part _after_ typing "next". Guess I should
have quoted the full debug session.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-03 12:27 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-04 13:28 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-05 19:03 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-04 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Turns out to be a linker bug that is still present in binutils
mainline. I'm testing a patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-04 13:28 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-05 19:03 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-05 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed with: https://www.sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2015-07/msg00035.html
(92a9c616e496f41c3d1da949078d5739add79161). FWIW, a workaround for
unpatched binutils is to build stage 1 with more optimisation,
via STAGE1_CFLAGS.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-07-05 19:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-07-01 18:53 [Bug tree-optimization/66729] New: Segfault starting with r224967 pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 19:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/66729] " rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 20:52 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 22:42 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-02 19:25 ` meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-02 21:25 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-03 12:24 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-03 12:27 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-04 13:28 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-05 19:03 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
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).