------- Comment #6 from andreas at florath dot net 2005-12-05 19:36 -------
--- reproducibility ---
It looks that there is some confusion about the reproducibility of
this or similar bugs (23541, 24039). Therefore a small description:
I was trying to compile gcc and GNU binutils for sparc where the
executables are 64 bit and the programs also create (only) 64 bit
binaries. The steps I did: ([X -> Y] means: run with X bit, create
binaries for Y bits)
(1) gcc [32 -> 32] using Solaris cc and Solaris ld, as, ar, ...
(2) GNU binutils [32 -> 64] compiled with (1)
(3) gcc [32 -> 64] compiled with (1) and using (2)
(4) GNU binutils [64 -> 64] compiled with (3)
(5) gcc [64 -> 64] compiled with (3) and using (4)
This ICE was found using (5).
As far as I can see, the bug can be triggered by
(A) a broken cpp from (5)
(i. e. wrong code and only the sparc 64 triggers it)
(B) a broken sparc 64 bit backend from (3)
(i. e. bad code is generated for cpp from (5) which then triggers
the ICE)
(C) broken binutils
When I try to compile GNU tar with (1) or (3), it works fine. So my
assumption is, that (B) is correct (and ignoring (C)). Then the
keyword for this and the similar bugs should be something like
'wrong-code' and component 'middle-end'.
--- duplicate notification ---
It looks, that
argp-help.c:1684:4: warning: #warning No reasonable value to return
should be printed at the point of the ICE.
When I look at the stack trace for this bug, its (nearly) the same as
in 24039:
ffffffff7f23c0fc strlen (1005b1a90, ffffffff7f3c2c70, 1005b1a90, 0, 45f310,
ffffffff7f3b4f50) + 7c
000000010040b6cc _cpp_begin_message (1, 1, 1dbd13, 5b1800, 10063ad08,
100639e20) + 154
0000000100409380 do_diagnostic (10062c350, 1, 1, 0, 3c, 10064ce18) + 14
000000010040a218 _cpp_handle_directive (1, 0, 0, 0, 1004a8ea1, 1005d47e8) + b8
0000000100414c6c _cpp_lex_token (10062c350, 0, ffffffffffffffff,
fffffffffffffff8, 0, ffffffff7de0c481) + c0
So I think this bug is a duplicate of 23541 and 24039.
--- further investigation ---
The next steps I'll do:
(i) check gcc-4.1-20051202
(ii) check gcc-4.2-20051203
(iii) run test-suites for (i) or (ii) and hope to find some existing
tests that triggers this error.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25200
