From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C8565388F044; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:44:08 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C8565388F044 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1592347448; bh=Zp6j6TgEz6S2sYjGONFv9QMuZN05b9QxVLI1WrL5AsU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=szRR8Vqfq6/EqkjnGpS2AOuASd/VU6V/efctSx5DSUeqB3DJWy4J/8JUeT8t02qPs abAQjqV3d0qPWNvY8/JuqXIFIAF8862N54dX8/edpPMzcoELMm4Y40WW4JCQfejzBK sWR256nyOtjapprv2NzTy4/Kxu3neOjE1FuGPq0o= From: "law at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/95381] [11 Regression]: Bootstrap on m68k fails with ICE: in operator[], at vec.h:867 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:44:08 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: law at redhat dot com 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: 11.0 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:44:08 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95381 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- That's an indication that something has tried to do an out of bounds read o= n a VEC object. The call chain points back to the initial quick_grow of an auto_vec from test_vector_cst_patterns -- which is wildly surprising. In fact if it were that broken I would fully expect other configurations, including x86_64 to be failing miserably. We're not seeing that. I would = also expect that we could see the failure with a cross compiler, but that seems = to be working fine as well. There's a nonzero chance this is actually a bug in the bootstrap compiler, particularly if it's happening in the stage1 build.=