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 0CC373858D20; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:03:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0CC373858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710158594;
	bh=VCP0IoS8Dy8+b3xIu2Raur95IROYWpoE9iedlYiszxQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JlMKLpV7buGvz51ybbv55DQniSthSpo5JLA1lYJdB2dxJ7mtyuK5uk+dGA41wfm7Y
	 LlUVtlMhNwW3f5UjR3MW9Ar3z5Df6F7e4lR6FsJC12oAwoBEBjgm6oOXQfYPpPjYqC
	 HhhgwwiwtUcyJxfincJmJNHXrdsKh9tZ01CGN3ro=
From: "tneumann at users dot sourceforge.net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libgcc/111731] [13/14 regression] gcc_assert is hit at
 libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c#L291
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:03:13 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tneumann at users dot sourceforge.net
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-111731-4-iJ5vq42m07@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111731-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111731-4@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=3D111731

--- Comment #4 from Thomas Neumann <tneumann at users dot sourceforge.net> =
---
It looks like the code does not find an unwind frame when de-registering an
exception handler. Are you sure that you do not de-register a dynamic frame
twice?

Otherwise I would need a way to reproduce the problem, ideally with a binar=
y. I
am also fine with remote access if that is easier for you. Or if that is not
possible you might want to add printf calls to btree_insert and btree_remov=
e,
tracing their call arguments. Having such a tracer should allow us to repro=
duce
the problem even without the host program.

(And it would allow for detecting duplicate de-registrations, i.e., errors =
in
the host program. I had that problem in the past myself with JITed code).=