From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27567 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2005 23:08:05 -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 27536 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jul 2005 23:08:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050715230800.27534.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mmitchel 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: 2005-07/txt/msg01984.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-15 23:07 ------- While calling ggc_free may be a bad idea in general, it's certainly a good idea in this case; empirically, that change resulted in a significantly faster compiler, as the comment in the code indicates. Furthermore, anything using NEWDECL after we returned was broken anyhow; this is just showing us the problem. Unfortunately, I'm not able to reproduce this problem on my machine. Is there any additional information about how we're using DECL_TEMPLATE_SPECIALIZATIONS? Or, information about your exact GC parameters to I can try to reproduce it that way? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22139