From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 172563858D20; Wed,  9 Aug 2023 13:53:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 172563858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691589199;
	bh=dVqlLA/kUplVXlFERujGlGx/UELsIQVUG1znMEBv/uE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Nfag88nSGNsUGImLJu79IawGElCde04DVrsqxDgxtN9HDojE7uLYg1uXxevEROfDf
	 GaK/U2zrXZG+QUwaqjK2kzhCnOl/VILyy7l7KPBD19FEh8qrELQvS4uwnefTIKiSkZ
	 4qq1MT0Z/fp/lgSxF1dyB/vI8DrWn/8iQrSrdoow=
From: "tneumann at users dot sourceforge.net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libgcc/110956] [13/14 regression] gcc_assert is hit at
 gcc-13.2.0/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c#L291 with some special library
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 13:53:18 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libgcc
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tneumann at users dot sourceforge.net
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110956-4-qUhfnytFY8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110956-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110956-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110956

--- Comment #5 from Thomas Neumann <tneumann at users dot sourceforge.net> =
---
The assert itself is old, it was just updated due to code changes. And
asserting there makes sense, if we keep an old frame around we might see a
crash later during unwinding if the unwinder tries to access code that does=
 no
longer exist due to dlclose. This does not apply if the bug is in the progr=
am
itself, of course, but I think it is more probable that it is a bug in gcc.

If somebody has a VM image or a remote machine I can use I would be happy to
debug the problem myself, but I do not have access to Solaris.=