Hi jasonwucj,
the port to a never Version is highly unlikely because this compiler is
needed as a dependency in another project.
I have already tested the same source with another port (it works)
And I really doubt that such a simple program would actually cause a bug
nowadays :)
Thanks for the hint with debug:
(symbol_ref:SI ("sbox") [flags 0x2] <var_decl 0x140fdd000 sbox>)
It's the array like the other dump said still I would like to see the
complete insn.
With best regards
Jens
Am 31.07.13 16:58, schrieb Chung-Ju Wu:
On 7/31/13 8:35 PM, Jens Mehler wrote:
After testing around I came up with a much easier example to reproduce my error:
static unsigned char sbox[256];
void
test(void)
{
int n;
for (n = 0; n < 256; n++)
sbox[n] = (unsigned char) n;
}
This results in the same error massage:
test3.c: In function 'test':
test3.c:4:1: internal compiler error: in gen_lowpart_general, at rtlhooks.c:59
Via GDB I was able to print the RTX in question:
As you can see the code is SYMBOL_REF and therefore the error.
I am not really sure how to track that any futher.
With best regards
Jens
-----
Breakpoint 2, gen_lowpart_general (mode=QImode, x=0x140fd2f80) at ../../gcc-4.5.3/gcc/rtlhooks.c:41
41 {
(gdb) p *x
$4 = {
code = SYMBOL_REF,
mode = SImode,
[...]
}
}
Hi, Jens,
You can use "call debug_rtx(x)" to display readable rtx information.
According to your investigation, the assertion failure is caused by
unexpected rtx in gen_lowpart_general. Your next step is to figure
out how come such rtx is produced and passed into gen_lowpart_general.
I also suggest using -fdump-rtl-all to assist you tracing which phases
and what backend rtl patterns create the unexpected rtx.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Jens Mehler <jens.mehler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have ported the GCC (v4.5.3) to a new target (32-bit RISC processor).
So far everything went fine. I wrote my own little C-Lib with basic input
output and tested it worked.
The GCC 4.5.3 is no longer maintained.
I think you can also try your port on 4.7, 4.8, or current trunk.
If it is indeed a bug in GCC, that would be nice to file a bug
on GCC bugzilla or provide a patch on gcc-patches mailing list.
Best regards,
jasonwucj
