From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16168 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2005 23:43:43 -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 16136 invoked by uid 48); 21 Jun 2005 23:43:37 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050621234337.16135.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050621175735.22139.bangerth@dealii.org> References: <20050621175735.22139.bangerth@dealii.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/22139] [4.0/4.1 regression] Segfault X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg02783.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-21 23:43 ------- This is the reason why ggc_free is considered a bad idea, because if this was really dead, it would have been GC'd already but it is not dead. And isn't the reason why we moved alway from what 2.95.3 did to the GC is so we don't have hard to debug problems like this? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22139