http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-02-20 19:44:46 UTC --- On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782 > > --- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-20 > 17:27:36 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #19) > > base returned from get_base_address should never be NULL, so it's > > safe to assume it isn't. Otherwise the patch looks ok to me. > > > > Unfortunately, when I was bootstrapping a modified patch without the > NULL test on x86_64, it segfaulted. The reason is that > expand_debug_expr calls set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos and in t > passes > > MEM[(struct basic_stringbuf *)&__s._M_stringbuf]._M_string That's an invalid MEM_REF, and the result of set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos is probably completely bogus. > which might be OK for debug statements, I don't really know. Even > though I guess it might wreck havoc in address spaces in debug info, > for now I'm reverting to the original patch from comment #17 for the > purposes of this PR. Ok, probably safer for 4.7 > Perhaps get_base_address misses a DECL_P in the condition looking into > MEM_REFs? No, sure not - in the above we have a component-ref inside the ADDR_EXPR. Richard.
