From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 3362E3858C52; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 07:43:46 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3362E3858C52 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1708415026; bh=1fVtviWNJGSXFUL3sNRR2Yr1ttpxpZE6UD/IZ0Iy8fA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=R3ZZVF8kR7YClwakbPiawYuewIoCoOXpJggwWYBqX0bhPNBZmuj65aLdV8jOjqZH3 +9mPGKXGi5KDVrtSE4Hg9ElTYknzAY9otWoJseykgYIDtyog9EIXdkRGngCK1zXKJT KioeE9KGNTJoZCpxIuRuL6mkOHVG2FFEW7WqV4oc= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/93573] [11/12/13/14 Regression] internal compiler error: in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:733 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 07:43:45 +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: 10.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5 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 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D93573 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13) > Hmm, is the testcase in comment #4 a regression though? It ICEs even in t= he > same way in GCC 4.1.2 all the way to the trunk including GCC 7.3.0. It is. gcc 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 at least compile that just fine, while r0-63127-ga63c0d13291b93a42e927d0356b2d9854c654337 ICEs.=