public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/67653] New: ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed
@ 2015-09-20 16:48 su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
2015-09-21 9:30 ` [Bug middle-end/67653] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-09-21 9:31 ` [Bug middle-end/67653] [4.9/5/6 Regression] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: su at cs dot ucdavis.edu @ 2015-09-20 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67653
Bug ID: 67653
Summary: ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple
failed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
Target Milestone: ---
The following code causes an ICE when compiled with the current gcc trunk (at
all optimization levels) on x86_64-linux-gnu in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes.
This is a regression from 5.2.x.
$ gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-trunk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150920 (experimental) [trunk revision 227943] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-5.2 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘foo’:
small.c:2:1: error: invalid rhs for gimple memory store
foo ()
^
D.1758
a
D.1758 = a;
small.c:2:1: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
0xae6b3d verify_gimple_in_seq(gimple*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/tree-cfg.c:4766
0x89d765 gimplify_body(tree_node*, bool)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/gimplify.c:9319
0x89daf6 gimplify_function_tree(tree_node*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/gimplify.c:9408
0x72e427 cgraph_node::analyze()
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.c:636
0x73162b analyze_functions
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.c:1091
0x732568 symbol_table::finalize_compilation_unit()
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.c:2540
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.
$
-----------------------------
void
foo ()
{
__asm__ (""::"m" ((
{
static int a;
a;
})));
}
>From gcc-bugs-return-497619-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Sep 20 16:57:15 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497619-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19655 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2015 16:57:14 -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 19357 invoked by uid 48); 20 Sep 2015 16:57:11 -0000
From: "ryan.burn at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/67654] New: [concepts] ICE when using concepts in constexpr function
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ryan.burn at gmail dot com
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: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-67654-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: 2015-09/txt/msg01597.txt.bz2
Content-length: 3667
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67654
Bug ID: 67654
Summary: [concepts] ICE when using concepts in constexpr
function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ryan.burn at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 36353
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36353&action=edit
reproduces problem
My version of gcc:
g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20150915 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The attached code causes this internal compiler error:
main.cpp: In instantiation of ‘struct A<int, double>’:
main.cpp:24:18: required from here
main.cpp:20:33: error: no matching function for call to ‘and_c()’
A() requires and_c<C<Tx>()...>() = default;
^
main.cpp:10:42: note: candidate: template<bool ...Values> constexpr bool
and_c()
template <bool... Values> constexpr bool and_c() {
^
main.cpp:10:42: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
main.cpp:20:33: internal compiler error: unexpected expression ‘C<int>’ of kind
template_id_expr
A() requires and_c<C<Tx>()...>() = default;
^
0x816bc0 cxx_eval_constant_expression
../../gcc/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:3685
0x812e25 cxx_eval_call_expression
../../gcc/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:1186
0x81575f cxx_eval_constant_expression
../../gcc/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:3205
0x81a53b cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr
../../gcc/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:3739
0x6846c6 convert_nontype_argument
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:6314
0x6846c6 convert_template_argument
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:7190
0x65a514 coerce_template_parameter_pack
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:7336
0x65a514 coerce_template_parms
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:7559
0x691bb3 fn_type_unification(tree_node*, tree_node*, tree_node*, tree_node*
const*, unsigned int, tree_node*, unification_kind_t, int, bool, bool)
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:16871
0x5fa73b print_z_candidate
../../gcc/gcc/cp/call.c:3424
0x5fc33e print_z_candidates
../../gcc/gcc/cp/call.c:3494
0x605c17 build_new_function_call(tree_node*, vec<tree_node*, va_gc,
vl_embed>**, bool, int)
../../gcc/gcc/cp/call.c:4104
0x78ff5e finish_call_expr(tree_node*, vec<tree_node*, va_gc, vl_embed>**, bool,
bool, int)
../../gcc/gcc/cp/semantics.c:2391
0x68131f tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool,
bool)
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:15872
0x66aad1 tsubst_expr(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool)
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:15044
0x822ed6 tsubst_predicate_constraint(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*)
../../gcc/gcc/cp/constraint.cc:1416
0x824fbf tsubst_constraint_info(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*)
../../gcc/gcc/cp/constraint.cc:1638
0x6739d0 tsubst_decl
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:11501
0x6624c6 tsubst(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*)
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:12426
0x697a26 instantiate_class_template_1
../../gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:9919
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-497620-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Sep 20 17:16:13 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497620-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 59179 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2015 17:16:13 -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 59146 invoked by uid 48); 20 Sep 2015 17:16:10 -0000
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:16:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: driver
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: manu 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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-48524-4-XL5ffjb9gk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48524-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48524-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: 2015-09/txt/msg01598.txt.bz2
Content-length: 450
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Is this fixed? Can we close it?
>From gcc-bugs-return-497621-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Sep 20 17:29:21 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497621-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 83174 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2015 17:29:20 -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 83129 invoked by uid 48); 20 Sep 2015 17:29:17 -0000
From: "rhill at gentoo dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:29:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: driver
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rhill at gentoo dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
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: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-48524-4-DAtbGXYbUk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48524-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48524-4@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: 2015-09/txt/msg01599.txt.bz2
Content-length: 439
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idH524
Ryan Hill <rhill at gentoo dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Ryan Hill <rhill at gentoo dot org> ---
As far as we're concerned it is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/67653] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed
2015-09-20 16:48 [Bug middle-end/67653] New: ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
@ 2015-09-21 9:30 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-09-21 9:31 ` [Bug middle-end/67653] [4.9/5/6 Regression] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-09-21 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67653
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2015-09-21
CC| |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed, but I think it's an old regression, started somewhen between r140425
and r140449.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/67653] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed
2015-09-20 16:48 [Bug middle-end/67653] New: ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
2015-09-21 9:30 ` [Bug middle-end/67653] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-09-21 9:31 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-09-21 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67653
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
Summary|ICE on valid code on |[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on
|x86_64-linux-gnu: |valid code on
|verify_gimple failed |x86_64-linux-gnu:
| |verify_gimple failed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-21 9:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-09-20 16:48 [Bug middle-end/67653] New: ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
2015-09-21 9:30 ` [Bug middle-end/67653] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-09-21 9:31 ` [Bug middle-end/67653] [4.9/5/6 Regression] " mpolacek 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).