https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 37698 [details]
> gcc6-pr69805.patch
>
> Untested fix.
>
As author of the patch that introduces the problem, let me do a review.
> 2016-02-16 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR driver/69805
> * gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC, GOMP_SELF_SPECS): Use
> :%* in %:gt() argument.
> (greater_than_spec_func): Adjust for expecting only numbers,
> if there are more than two numbers, compare the last two.
>
> * testsuite/libgomp.c/pr69805.c: New test.
>
> --- gcc/gcc.c.jj 2016-02-15 22:22:51.000000000 +0100
> +++ gcc/gcc.c 2016-02-16 09:35:03.579849080 +0100
> @@ -1019,7 +1019,7 @@ proper position among the other output f
> %{s} %{t} %{u*} %{z} %{Z} %{!nostdlib:%{!nostartfiles:%S}} \
> %{static:} %{L*} %(mfwrap) %(link_libgcc) " \
> VTABLE_VERIFICATION_SPEC " " SANITIZER_EARLY_SPEC " %o " CHKP_SPEC " \
> - %{fopenacc|fopenmp|%:gt(%{ftree-parallelize-loops=*} 1):\
> + %{fopenacc|fopenmp|%:gt(%{ftree-parallelize-loops=*:%*} 1):\
For:
...
$ gcc -ftree-parallelize-loops=3 -ftree-parallelize-loops=2
...
this passes:
("3", "2", "1")
to greater_than_spec_func, instead of:
("-", "ftree-parallelize-loops=3", "-", "ftree-parallelize-loops=2", "1")
.
This changes the semantics of greater_than_spec_func slightly. Strictly
speaking not necessary to fix the ICE. But the new semantics will perhaps be
easier to understand.
Hmm, I see I forgot to document the spec function in doc/invocation.texi.
> @@ -9775,29 +9775,13 @@ greater_than_spec_func (int argc, const
> if (argc == 1)
> return NULL;
>
> - gcc_assert (argc == 3);
> - gcc_assert (argv[0][0] == '-');
> - gcc_assert (argv[0][1] == '\0');
> -
> - /* Point p to <n> in in -opt=<n>. */
> - const char *p = argv[1];
> - while (true)
> - {
> - char c = *p;
> - if (c == '\0')
> - gcc_unreachable ();
> + gcc_assert (argc >= 2);
>
> - ++p;
> -
> - if (c == '=')
> - break;
> - }
> -
Due to the new semantics, no longer any need to skip '-opt='.
And 'gcc_assert (argc == 3)' is the assert that triggered. The assert was
incorrect because for spec '%{S*}', gcc 'substitutes all the switches specified
to GCC whose names start with -S', and the code assumed that only the last is
substituted.
Patch looks good to me.
I'll follow up with a documentation patch.
