------- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-09-22 04:59 ------- I'm getting an ICE that looks very similar (below). However, I cannot reproduce the ICE with the test case posted when this issue was opened. Therefore I'm wondering if my ICE is different. What is the platform, and what is the exact g++ command to reproduce the ICE with the original test case?
Reducing the sources leading to my ICE is probably serious work... My platform is: Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) % uname -r -m 2.6.15-1.2054_FC5 x86_64 g++ (GCC) 4.3.0 20070919 (experimental) SVN revision 128608 g++ (GCC) 4.3.0 20070922 (experimental) SVN revision 128661 ice_gimple.cpp: In constructor 'scitbx::iso_surface::triangulation<CoordinatesType, ValueType>::triangulation(scitbx::af::const_ref<ValueType, scitbx::af::c_grid_padded<3ul, long unsigned int> >, ValueType, const scitbx::af::tiny<IndexValueType, 3ul>&, bool) [with CoordinatesType = double, ValueType = double]': ice_gimple.cpp:32: error: invalid operand to binary operator &this_2(D)->n_cells.D.101998.elems[0]; ice_gimple.cpp:32: error: PHI def is not a GIMPLE value result_34 = PHI <&this_2(D)->n_cells.D.101998.elems[0](2), result_36(3)> &this_2(D)->n_cells.D.101998.elems[0]; ice_gimple.cpp:32: error: invalid operand to binary operator &this_2(D)->cell_lengths.D.104936.elems[0]; ice_gimple.cpp:32: error: PHI def is not a GIMPLE value result_48 = PHI <&this_2(D)->cell_lengths.D.104936.elems[0](5), result_51(6)> &this_2(D)->cell_lengths.D.104936.elems[0]; ice_gimple.cpp:32: internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33458
