From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-62650-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24032 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2003 14:55:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 24025 invoked by uid 48); 5 Jul 2003 14:55:08 -0000
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 14:55:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030705145508.24024.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
From: "pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <20030425143600.10499.drow@mvista.com>
References: <20030425143600.10499.drow@mvista.com>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/10499] [3.3, 3.4] Debug information for some C++ headers is missing classes (template specific?)
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00436.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10499


pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-07-05 14:55 -------
I see the crash with gdb (5.1.90CVS-3) but with gdb 2003-07-04-cvs, I get the output:
{<basic_iostream<char,std::char_traits<char> >> = {<basic_istream<
char,std::char_traits<char> >> = {<basic_ios<char,std::char_traits<char> >> = <invalid 
address>,
      _vptr.basic_istream = 0x10, _M_gcount = 139083320}, <basic_ostream<
char,std::char_traits<char> >> = {_vptr.basic_ostream = 0x813c9c0}, <No data fields>},
  _M_stringbuf = {<basic_streambuf<char,std::char_traits<char> >> = 
{_vptr.basic_streambuf = 0x50, _M_in_beg = 0x11 <Address 0x11 out of bounds>,
      _M_in_cur = 0x851f948 <Address 0x851f948 out of bounds>, _M_in_end = 
0x86dd6f8 <Address 0x86dd6f8 out of bounds>, _M_out_beg = 0x10 <Address 0x10 out 
of bounds>,
      _M_out_cur = 0x10 <Address 0x10 out of bounds>, _M_out_end = 0x4212df00 "", 
_M_buf_locale = {static none = 0, static ctype = 1, static numeric = 2,
        static collate = 4, static time = 8, static monetary = 16, static messages = 32, static all 
= 63, _M_impl = 0x4212dfa8, static _S_classic = 0x400c6b9c,
        static _S_global = 0x400c6b9c, static _S_categories = 0x400b3ab0, static 
_S_categories_size = 6}}, _M_mode = 796225127, _M_string = {static npos = 
4294967295,
      _M_dataplus = {<allocator<char>> = {<No data fields>}, _M_p = 0x11 <Address 0x11 
out of bounds>}}}}

This is with the mainline gcc (20030705).
I will attach the output of readelf.
Can you look at the output and tell me if this bug still exists?