From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10737 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2004 20:04:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10658 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2004 20:04:32 -0000 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040824200432.10657.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "law at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040816015952.17044.danglin@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20040816015952.17044.danglin@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/17044] [3.5 Regression] libgcc2.c:169: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg02486.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2004-08-24 20:04 ------- Subject: Re: [3.5 Regression] libgcc2.c:169: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 14:00, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote: > ------- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2004-08-24 20:00 ------- > Subject: Re: [3.5 Regression] libgcc2.c:169: internal c > > > > The exception occurs in the following call to free: > > > > > > Breakpoint 13, 0x400000000031e350 in thread_block (bb=0x800003fffeacd8c0) > > > at ../../gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c:381 > > > 381 free (rd); > > > (gdb) bt > > > #0 0x400000000031e350 in thread_block (bb=0x800003fffeacd8c0) > > > at ../../gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c:381 > > OK. That means there's got to be a memory management error of some > > kind. I wonder if we're freeing GC'd memory or something stupid like > > that. > > That might be the case although I didn't actually determine how the > object was created. I know the fault occurred for i = 0 and all = false. > > One problem is that the varray is a local and it's created and > managed using VARRAY macros that use GC. There's also a missing > "struct" in the call to xcalloc. > > I have an alternate fix that uses NOGC macros and VARRAY_FREE if > it's preferable to use malloc for the allocation of the varray. Let's go with your original fix -- I really dislike the NOGC stuff. jeff > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17044