On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 07:21:40 +0000 (UTC), Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote: > Steve M. Robbins dixit: > > >Interesting, but this is an entirely different bug. Also, this new bug is= > in=20 > >gcc, not boost. > > Sorry, right. I=E2=80=99m just amazed that the boost compilation is > still continuing, and replied to the mail =E2=80=9Cthread=E2=80=9D we alrea= > dy > had so we have the information in one place. > > I=E2=80=99ll follow this up on debian-68k@l.d.o for now, so you=E2=80=99re > not =E2=80=9Cspammed=E2=80=9D with this particular thing. > > Mikael: I could reproduce this with a crosscompiler with > -g -O3 -fPIC where -fPIC is the culprit. Lowering to -O1 > also let us get rid of the ICE whereas removing -g had > no effect, so the minimum to trigger it is -O2 -fPIC.
Please see <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58369> for the upstream bug entry I've opened. There is a reduced test case there, an analysis of the bug, and two possible patches. I need to test the last patch extensively before submitting it -- so don't use it outside of private testing environments please. The bug is very very sensitive to seemingly irrelevant details in the source code being compiled. You should be able to work around it by tweaking optimization levels slightly. /Mikael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21040.50549.37535.833...@pilspetsen.it.uu.se
