[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?
From: |
dpc |
Subject: |
[avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8? |
Date: |
Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:39:32 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (darwin) |
apologies if this is the wrong list or something i missed in the
archives.
short story: i get an ICE w/ gcc 4.6 when building avr-libc-1.4.8.
longer story:
i needed to re-install an avr toolchain and already had binutils/gcc in
source-code-control form laying around so i just re-built them for avr,
grabbed the 1.4.8 package, and tried to build. the build dies w/ this
ICE message:
../../../libc/stdlib/dtostre.c: In function 'dtostre':
../../../libc/stdlib/dtostre.c:63:3: internal compiler error: in
build_unary_op, at c-typeck.c:3773
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
the line # is close because i added a little printf to get the tree
nodes printed because they were optimized away. the assertion we're
hitting is:
gcc_assert (quals == orig_quals
|| TREE_CODE (argtype) == FUNCTION_TYPE);
where the quals don't match (quals==1 and orig_quals==0), and
argtype==array_type from the attribute(progmem) qualified array in
dtostre.c
__attribute__((progmem)) static char str_nan[2][4] =
{"nan", "NAN"};
the comment in c-type.c above the failing block is
/* If the lvalue is const or volatile, merge that into the type
to which the address will point. This should only be needed
for function types. */
where teh assertion seems to be about being 'sure' that the thinking for
the last sentence is correct. if i get rid of the tree-code check in the
assertion things seem to build ok (at least by my eye if i build w/ -S).
finally, the question. is this a gcc thing or an avr-libc thing?
\p
---
If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
- Carl Jung
- [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?,
dpc <=
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, Weddington, Eric, 2010/06/17
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/17
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, Weddington, Eric, 2010/06/17
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, Joerg Wunsch, 2010/06/18
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/18
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/22
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/23
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?, dpc, 2010/06/18