Home > Internal Compiler > Internal Compiler Error In Memory Address At Explow.c

Internal Compiler Error In Memory Address At Explow.c

For a program that you wrote, another work-around for the cases where a program crashes due to failure of CWSDPMI to allocate more RAM is to use an alternative algorithm for Use cgraph_debug_gimple_stmt instead of debug_gimple_stmt. One user reported that he had random crashes and seemingly-missing files due to a disk without proper cooling. Are you talking about the latest release v3.21? #10 nice Super Member Total Posts : 1013 Reward points : 0 Joined: 2004/09/18 11:42:25Location: Germany Status: offline RE: C30 3.21 compiler errors check my blog

Status: offline RE: C30 3.21 compiler errors 2009/12/05 06:21:55 (permalink) 0 I'd just send the code "as is". On the testcase there is another set_cfun call after tree_rest_of_compilation has been called though, in particular from cgraph_release_function_body during inlining (called from cgraph_release_node). But x32 wants 32-bit -0x40000300, not 64-bit -0x40000300. Regards Calum #16 stumichaels Super Member Total Posts : 499 Reward points : 0 Joined: 2007/03/13 21:03:10Location: Commack, NY Status: offline RE: C30 3.21 compiler errors 2009/12/07 22:32:01 (permalink) 0 We

It doesn't spill anything or waste any instructions. This is what I checked in. > Do we also need this patch on 4.8? Lu on Oct. 12, 2013, 2:57 p.m. output > movl %ecx, -1073743664(%eax) > even if the address is a PLUS in DImode.

In particular, bad memory chips can cause GCC to behave erratically, since the compiler is a memory-intensive program: it moves large buffers around alot, and uses lots of memory. Your code examples, both 1) & 2), compile without any error on my PC, which has the latest v3.21 installed. #8 flubydust Super Member Total Posts : 1230 Reward points : That would really be hackish... Lu Oct. 12, 2013, 2:57 p.m.

See PR 49721. Set error_found for incorrectly represented calls to thunks. * gcc.target/i386/pr47564.c: New test. Description Diego Novillo 2011-02-01 03:09:18 UTC Compiling the test case at the end with -O2 causes: $ ./cc1plus -O2 -quiet a.cc a.cc: In function 'void E(uint64*, uint64*, const void*, int64)': a.cc:18:15: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515672 Law 2011-02-01 03:48:43 UTC st4 definitely isn't a valid memory address...

Why mount doesn't respect option ro Sci-Fi movie, about binary code, aliens, and headaches Kiel traduki "sign language" respekteme? memcpy seems to need optimization level 1 or higher to error, assignment of structures can error at any optimization level. I have noticed that clang doesn't support a similar flag to control code generation, so maybe the gcc created this flag long time ago and now it's just not worth it Still, an internal compiler error is not nearly as bad as silently generating bad code.

The condition aren't fulfilled here since the constant is very large negative and the variable part small. learn this here now Lu 2012-10-31 02:04:18 UTC [hjl@gnu-tools-1 delta-2006.08.03]$ cat x.c typedef int int32_t; typedef unsigned int uint32_t; typedef int32_t Elf32_Sword; typedef struct { Elf32_Sword d_tag; } Elf32_Dyn; struct link_map { Elf32_Dyn *l_ld; Elf32_Dyn v3.20 has a serious bug in char handling, so you may be better off using v3.12 or v3.21 Beta. My first Harmony project Active Posts 24v input to microcontroller My first Harmony project powering a pic16f from off hook phone line voltage Harmony - ADC setup in the Configurator

Anyway, with two additional lines #include // D.U.T PIC24Fj256GA110 #include the project is complete and you should be able to reproduce the error. click site When SRCPTR is NULL, output the @@ -23032,8 +23047,8 @@ ix86_expand_movmem (rtx dst, rtx src, rtx count_exp, rtx align_exp, if (!count) count_exp = copy_to_mode_reg (GET_MODE (count_exp), count_exp); - destreg = copy_addr_to_reg The failure just shows that the > controversial patch [1] for PR 49721 was wrong. > > Quote from [1]: > > --quote-- > I am checking in this patch, which I have > tried many different approaches without any success. > I will revisit it if we run into any problems with x32 > applications. > --/qoute-- > > So, we

  1. I'm not surprised it breaks the compiler when you tell it that all the xmm regs are reserved, and then you try to use intrinsics.
  2. Lu PR target/58690 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_copy_addr_to_reg): New function. (ix86_expand_movmem): Replace copy_addr_to_reg with ix86_copy_addr_to_reg. (ix86_expand_setmem): Likewise.
  3. We > already had similar issues in the past (MEM_REF expansion on SPARC64, array > indexes on IA-64/VMS) but the bugs were in the RTL expansion.
  4. Should a spacecraft be launched towards the East?
  5. Are you talking about the latest release v3.21?
  6. I think that the (slightly less hackish) change in ix86_print_operand_address would be preferable.
  7. If the target legitmize_address made a change but didn't give us back something useful, then this routine could ICE in the way you described.
  8. Warning, it may not be ready for prime time...
  9. Target: pic30-coff Configured with: /build/3.21/build_20091112/src/gcc-4.0.2/gcc-4.0.2/configure --target=pic30-coff --host=i386-mingw32 --build=i386-pc-linux --program-prefix=pic30-coff- --enable-languages=c Thread model: single gcc version 4.0.3 (dsPIC30, Microchip v3_21) Build date: Nov 18 2009 Meanwhile I received an answer from the

So it's not all bad. Does it make any senses? Comment 7 Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-01 15:47:07 UTC Following works by not doing target_reinit once tree_rest_of_compilation calls init_function_start, until final. --- function.c.jj 2011-01-25 18:40:08.000000000 +0100 +++ function.c 2011-02-01 16:33:48.000000000 +0100 @@ -4294,7 news This flag was introduced with the intention to get rid of as many 0x67 address size prefixes as possible.

Or making faster / more efficient code? Comment 6 H.J. webmaster donations bookstore delorie software privacy Copyright 2001 by Eli Zaretskii Updated Apr 2001 [prev in list] [next in

up vote -1 down vote favorite I have 3 versions of gcc installed on my linux 64 bit machine gcc 4.9.2 gcc 5.3.0 gcc 6 [ a build from an svn

You can verify it yourself. Try to play with your BIOS setup and see if that helps. Comment 28 H.J. Some innocent-looking programs are known to cause GCC to gobble preposterous amounts of memory, which could cause it to crash or abort after printing "Virtual memory exhausted".

So if your system sometimes cannot find files that you know are there, check whether your disk gets proper cooling and generally works okay. This change is only a refinement of another one. Related 123Useful GCC flags for C1647Why doesn't GCC optimize a*a*a*a*a*a to (a*a*a)*(a*a*a)?109Clang vs GCC for my Linux Development project41GCC -g vs -g3 GDB Flag: What is the Difference?13What's the proper way More about the author It's clear that Richard's change, aka the un-sign-extension of sizetype constants, is an earthquake here.

It's not totally wrong, given the context of convert_memory_address_addr_space which is already optimistically correct only. Lu wrote: > >> In x32, when a TLS address is in DImode and Pmode is SImode, >> copy_addr_to_reg will fail. more stack exchange communities company blog Stack Exchange Inbox Reputation and Badges sign up log in tour help Tour Start here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed Bug55142 - [4.8 Regression] internal compiler error: in plus_constant, at explow.c:88 Summary: [4.8 Regression] internal compiler error: in plus_constant, at explow.c:88 Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 49721 Alias: None Product: gcc

output movl %ecx, -1073743664(%eax) even if the address is a PLUS in DImode. It is used when assigning structures and it seems for the compiler built in memcpy. But nowhere in those intrinsics calls do I see the name of a hardware register, so it must be filled in during code generation. –rici Mar 5 at 4:28 post edited by aschen0866 - 2009/12/07 17:15:10 #12 nice Super Member Total Posts : 1013 Reward points : 0 Joined: 2004/09/18 11:42:25Location: Germany Status: offline RE: C30 3.21 compiler errors 2009/12/07

The problem is even listed at the bottom of x32-abi project page [1]. [1] https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ Comment 27 Eric Botcazou 2012-11-08 17:17:35 UTC > No, this would be one giant kludge by I am 100% sure that it is a 4.8 regression. LEGITIMATE_CONSTANT_P (y)) Previous message: GPC on a DEC Alpha Next message: GPC on a DEC Alpha Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Just switch arms of the if clause. > > OK with these changes.

Success! It is a pain to work with Pmode == DImode and ptr_mode == SImode for x32.