From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8922 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2011 12:48:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 8911 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2011 12:48:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.20.16) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:47:47 +0000 Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202) id D5AA59AC88E; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:47:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:02:00 -0000 From: Jan Hubicka To: David Edelsohn Cc: Jan Hubicka , GCC Patches , martin jambor , Richard Guenther Subject: Re: [RFC] Context sensitive inline analysis Message-ID: <20110426124745.GE8655@kam.mff.cuni.cz> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg02032.txt.bz2 > Honza, > > This patch causes a bootstrap failure when building libstdc++ on AIX: > > In file included from > /farm/dje/src/src/libstdc++-v3/include/precompiled/stdc++.h:94:0: > /tmp/20110423/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/libstdc++-v3/include/valarray:1163:1: > internal compiler error: vector VEC(tree,base) index domain error, in > evaulate_conditions_for_edge at ipa-inline-analysis.c:466 Hi, similar error was reported for HP, too. I will look into it now. I hoped it is same as the Toon's problem (that hack I removed caused quite bad propagation across unitialized datastructured) Yesterday I analyzed last problem I reproduced Mozilla and those are due to the fact that we don't do type compatibility checking when doing indirect inlining and in LTO type merging. So different than this one. > > I do not know if this is related to the WPA failure reported by Toon. > > Also, I think you mean "evaluate" not "evaulate" in the description > and new function names. Duh, will fix that! Honza > > Thanks, David