https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
CC|
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-28 10:25
---
I will give the situation a more detailed look later (but yes, I believe this
is invalid input to LTO). Let's defer a solution a bit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 18:39 ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #7)
> Maybe IPA SRA gets
> those two types from unrelated places?
>
I believe they are quite elated. The body of the function is:
:
init = c_parser_initializer (0B); [return slot optim
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 14:22 ---
Using c-parser.i and c-typeck.i generated from my current trunk tree passes
gcc> ./xgcc -B. -r -nostdlib xc-parser.i xc-typeck.i -O2 -flto
just fine. Raphael, was this by chance an ICE you saw during reduction of
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 14:17 ---
As I said the testcase has two incompatible variants of union tree_node and
they are obviously not merged and thus not compatible. Maybe IPA SRA gets
those two types from unrelated places?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 13:59 ---
The problem here is that build_ref_for_offset_1() cannot find a field
corresponding to a replacement within its own aggregate. The field is
identified by its offset (zero) and type. Unfortunately,
types_compatible_
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-21 12:18 ---
Confirmed. But the reduced testcase has
typedef struct VEC_constructor_elt_gc {
VEC_constructor_elt_base base;
} VEC_constructor_elt_gc;
vs.
typedef struct VEC_constructor_elt_gc {
} VEC_constructor_elt_gc;
--- Comment #4 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 17:55
---
Created an attachment (id=18840)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18840&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
--- Comment #3 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 17:55
---
Created an attachment (id=18839)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18839&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
--- Comment #2 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 17:55
---
Created an attachment (id=18838)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18838&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
--- Comment #1 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 17:54
---
Created an attachment (id=18837)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18837&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
14 matches
Mail list logo
