http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2) > > I'm pretty sure this is my fault. I'd bet for r206379. > > r206362 is OK, r206444 is not. ... and indeed reverting r206379 makes the ICE go away. However I don't think there is anything wrong with that revision. It probably just exposed a lower lying problem.
