From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27765 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2010 11:25:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 27740 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Apr 2010 11:25:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from moene.org (HELO moene.org) (82.95.66.103) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:24:57 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ident=toon) by moene.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O5zxG-00044Z-Lq; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:24:54 +0200 Message-ID: <4BD42686.1050604@moene.org> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:28:00 -0000 From: Toon Moene User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: gcc mailing list Subject: Re: lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_symtab_merge_decls_1, at lto-symtab.c:549 References: <4BD2F215.5010704@moene.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00694.txt.bz2 Richard Guenther wrote: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Toon Moene wrote: >> lto-symtab.c:549: >> >> 524 >> 525 /* Helper to process the decl chain for the symbol table entry *SLOT. >> */ >> 526 >> 527 static int >> 528 lto_symtab_merge_decls_1 (void **slot, void *data ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) >> .... >> 545 /* Assert it's the only one. */ >> 546 if (prevailing) >> 547 for (e = prevailing->next; e; e = e->next) >> 548 gcc_assert (e->resolution != LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY >> 549 && e->resolution != LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF); >> >> Of course, I'd like to make a test case out of this - but what is this >> assert checking ? > > It is checking that for one symbol we only have one definition. > > You are using -fuse-linker-plugin? Indeed, I do (all of our code ends up in libraries - .a files - so I have to, to make -flto -fwhole-program be meaningful). Is it a problem with COMMON ? Those typically have umpteen definitions, which all have to match ... Thanks in advance, -- Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/ Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html#Fortran