From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 9443B395C047; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:53:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9443B395C047
From: "mark at klomp dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: dwz@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup ==
 NULL' failed.
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:53:21 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: dwz
X-Bugzilla-Component: default
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mark at klomp dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: nobody at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-27213-11298-S00kcRRe2W@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-27213-11298@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-27213-11298@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: dwz@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dwz mailing list <dwz.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/dwz>,
 <mailto:dwz-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/dwz/>
List-Help: <mailto:dwz-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/dwz>,
 <mailto:dwz-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:53:21 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D27213

--- Comment #7 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Another thing I'm worried about, where in die_eq_1 we compare the
> DW_FORM_implicit_const values?
> I wonder about:
>         case DW_FORM_flag_present:
>           break;
>         case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
>           if ((!ignore_locus || old_ptr1)
>               && t1->values[i] !=3D t2->values[j])
>             FAIL;
>           break;
> in die_eq_1.

Yes, I was just looking at that one. It would make checksum_die and die_eq
agree with each other. Looks correct.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=