Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
Bug 112510 - Internal compiler error in extract_insn, at recog.c:2148
Internal compiler error in extract_insn, at recog.c:2148
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: gcc (Show other bugs)
i686 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jakub Jelinek
David Lawrence
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2003-12-21 17:20 EST by Need Real Name
Modified: 2007-04-18 13:00 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-12-22 05:43:14 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Need Real Name 2003-12-21 17:20:21 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)

Description of problem:
Compile this guy:

int bug () {
  unsigned int ones = 0x7fffffff;
  int i,j;

And get:

gcc bug.c
bug.c: In function `bug':
bug.c:4: warning: right shift count >= width of type
bug.c:5: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 15 9 17 (set (reg:QI 60)
        (const_int 129 [0x81])) -1 (nil)
bug.c:5: Internal compiler error in extract_insn, at recog.c:2148
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/> for instructions.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Version     : 3.2                               Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.see above

Expected Results:  not to bugger up

Additional info:
Comment 1 Jakub Jelinek 2003-12-22 05:43:14 EST
This is verified in newer GCC rpms, verified in GCC 3.2.2-5, 3.2.3-24 and 3.3.2-5.
But, your testcase invokes undefined behaviour anyway.
Comment 2 Need Real Name 2003-12-22 15:41:43 EST
I understand that the runtime behaviour is undefined. It doesn't mean 
that it's acceptable for the compiler to be to stupid to compile it.
Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2003-12-22 16:11:20 EST
Wanted to say this is FIXED in newer GCC rpms.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.