From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10978 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2002 16:26:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10930 invoked by uid 71); 25 Feb 2002 16:26:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020225162601.10924.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: ro@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Rainer Orth Subject: Re: target/5505: Doubts about a patch for OSF Reply-To: Rainer Orth X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00695.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/5505; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Rainer Orth To: Richard.Kreckel@Uni-Mainz.DE Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/5505: Doubts about a patch for OSF Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:25:52 +0100 (MET) Richard B. Kreckel writes: > Sorry, silly me. I've attached an old case and that index out of bound > has been fixed in the real sources ages ago. However, the crash I see > seems to have nothing to do with this line! Modifying the condition such > that j==0 does not happen still results in a crashing program when > compiled with -O2 -fno-exceptions and a working program when compiled with > -O2 alone. There is an example modified accordingly attached to this > email and this time I have made sure it also runs with -lefence and stuff. ok, thanks. > If you have some time, it would be nice if you could confirm the > dependence on -fno-exceptions before I start stripping that down. Thanks! Indeed: the test program works (i.e. doesn't crash) at -O2 and -O1 -fno-exceptions, but SEGVs at -O2 -fno-exceptions. Rainer