https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116516

            Bug ID: 116516
           Summary: [lra] ICE in decompose_normal_address, at
                    rtlanal.cc:6712
           Product: gcc
           Version: 15.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: rtl-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
                CC: vmakarov at redhat dot com
  Target Milestone: ---
              Host: x86_64-linux
            Target: x86_64-linux

Compiling the gcc testsuite file gcc.dg/analyzer/pr95152-4.c with anything
stronger than -O0 results in an ICE

during RTL pass: reload
/home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/pr95152-4.c:13:1: internal
compiler error: in decompose_normal_address, at rtlanal.cc:6712
   13 | }
      | ^
0x33b9e0e internal_error(char const*, ...)
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/diagnostic-global-context.cc:492
0x3397bf3 fancy_abort(char const*, int, char const*)
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/diagnostic.cc:1658
0x1628109 decompose_normal_address
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/rtlanal.cc:6712
0x16284a9 decompose_address(address_info*, rtx_def**, machine_mode, unsigned
char, rtx_code)
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/rtlanal.cc:6805
0x16284dd decompose_lea_address(address_info*, rtx_def**)
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/rtlanal.cc:6815
0x1425625 process_address_1
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/lra-constraints.cc:3730
0x14261c8 process_address
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/lra-constraints.cc:4017
0x142685d curr_insn_transform
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/lra-constraints.cc:4229
0x142acfe lra_constraints(bool)
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/lra-constraints.cc:5496
0x1413956 lra(_IO_FILE*, int)
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/lra.cc:2445
0x13bc8c9 do_reload
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/ira.cc:5976
0x13bcdc6 execute
        /home/fkastl/gcc/src/gcc/ira.cc:6164

Maybe this is the same issue as pr63987?

Reply via email to