--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-31
04:58 ---
*** Bug 19776 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-17
22:33 ---
Fixed in 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESO
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-17
22:31 ---
Subject: Bug 22139
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-17 22:30:58
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-17
22:02 ---
Subject: Bug 22139
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-17 22:02:10
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/cp : C
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-17
20:55 ---
Thank you for reducing the test case!
I now understand the bug, and am working on a fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22139
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-16
04:31 ---
Here is a reduced testcase, reproducible with --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param
ggc-min-
heapsize=0:
template class Tensor;
template struct SymmetricTensor { SymmetricTensor
(const Tensor<2,di
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-16
04:01 ---
Crashes with "g++ --param ggc-min-expand=1 -c PR22139.ii".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22139
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-16
02:20 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Or, information about your exact GC parameters to I can try to reproduce it
> that way?
I think I know why the default GC parameters cannot reproduce this on the
mainline is bec
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-15
23:24 ---
I was able to reproduce the failure with the last testcase with "--param
ggc-min-expand=0 --param
ggc-min-heapsize=0".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22139
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-15
23:07 ---
While calling ggc_free may be a bad idea in general, it's certainly a good idea
in this case; empirically, that change resulted in a significantly faster
compiler, as the comment in the code indicates. Fur
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:57 ---
Mine.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codeso
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||21687
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22139
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
23:43 ---
This is the reason why ggc_free is considered a bad idea, because if this was
really dead, it would have
been GC'd already but it is not dead. And isn't the reason why we moved alway
from what 2.95.3 did
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
23:15 ---
We still reference the old decl in DECL_TEMPLATE_SPECIALIZATIONS of the
template_decl determinant in
this case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22139
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
23:07 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> This was most likely caused by:
> 2004-12-30 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * decl.c (duplicate_decls): Call ggc_free on declarations we will
> not be ne
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
23:04 ---
This was most likely caused by:
2004-12-30 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* decl.c (duplicate_decls): Call ggc_free on declarations we will
not be needing any longer.
The FUNCTION_DECL
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
21:57 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Actually it is not a stack overflow but I real bug in the C++ front-end.
> Hmm, we are chaning the TREE_CHAIN of error_mark node, wtf.
"I" should "a", for some reason I missed typ
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
19:11 ---
Actually it is not a stack overflow but I real bug in the C++ front-end.
Hmm, we are chaning the TREE_CHAIN of error_mark node, wtf.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22139
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
18:55 ---
> Attached is another testcase that has only half as many lines (~40k) and
> that may be simpler to reduce...
Well it takes a long to reduce because I am also running the Ada/ACATS
testsuite in the backgro
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-06-21 18:48
---
Created an attachment (id=9126)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9126&action=view)
Smaller testcase
Attached is another testcase that has only half as many lines (~40k) and
that may be simple
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
18:43 ---
I am starting to think this is just a stack overflow and a defect in how the GC
works (or someone forgot
chain_next which should have reduced the stack usage).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
18:41 ---
I am going to try to reduce this with "--param ggc-min-expand=0 --param
ggc-min-heapsize=0"
which takes a long time on my poor machine.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21
18:36 ---
This worked with "3.5.0 20040909" and "4.0.0 20041124" but not with "4.0.0
20050225".
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.1 regression] Segfault |[4.0/4.1 regression]
||Segfault
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
25 matches
Mail list logo
