From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26323 invoked by alias); 2 May 2003 00:36:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26295 invoked by uid 71); 2 May 2003 00:36:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 00:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030502003600.26294.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: ghazi@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: middle-end/10472: [3.4 regression] ICE in instantiate_virtual_regs_lossage Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR middle-end/10472; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, , , Giovanni Bajo , Subject: Re: middle-end/10472: [3.4 regression] ICE in instantiate_virtual_regs_lossage Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 19:32:14 -0500 (CDT) > First I tried to determine under what circumstances and platforms the > bug appears. While the PR was opened against cygwin, it seems it > should occur on any x86 target. I'm sorry, I should have made that clearer: the reduced testcase ICEs on my plain vanilla x86-linux-gnu box with SuSE 8.0. > (and why I'm not being chased with torches and pitchforks) We write hate-mails these days -- mental torture is just as effective :-) > BTW, IMHO the reduced testcase in the PR is slightly misleading. It > lead me at least to believe the bug had something to do with null > pointers. Again my fault. > In the mean time, we can disable the optmization on x86 so that cygwin > people can resume bootstrap. (Yes this is lame, sorry I'm not able to > provide a proper fix.) Alternatively, one could work around the bootstrap failure with something like the following instead of your small testcase (I'm surprised this works): void foo (char *s) { char * tmp = __builtin_stpcpy (s, "hi"); f (tmp); } That's just as lame, and fragile on top of that, but we don't have to wield the sledgehammer to stomp this bug, it would be simpler to add a testcase and we don't have to remember to re-enable the optimization once someone gets around to fixing the underlying problem. There can't be that many places in gcc where such a fix would be necessary, and Giovanni would surely be willing to find them on his box, right? :-) W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/