From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17937 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2002 22:16:03 -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 17865 invoked by uid 71); 27 Sep 2002 22:16:02 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020927221602.17862.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Zack Weinberg Subject: Re: preprocessor/8055: CPP0 segfault on FreeBSD + PATCH Reply-To: Zack Weinberg X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00764.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/8055; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Zack Weinberg To: Mark Mitchell Cc: "ak03@gte.com" , Neil Booth , "gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org" , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: preprocessor/8055: CPP0 segfault on FreeBSD + PATCH Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:11:28 -0700 On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 01:50:20PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > --On Friday, September 27, 2002 12:50:09 PM -0700 Zack Weinberg > wrote: > > >Thank you for this bug report. I've reproduced the problem, and > >confirm your analysis. I'm going to do a complete bootstrap+test > >cycle on a slight modification of your patch (see below) and will > >apply to mainline if successful. > > I think we need to figure out if this is a regression before applying > it to the branch. Just in case. If it is a regression, it's fine. Reproducing the bug is a bit tricky; I have to instrument the buggy routine and then adjust the filler text in the test case by hand. 3.0, 3.2 (nee 3.1), and mainline all want different lengths of filler text. I can say that I reproduced the bug under laboratory conditions using top of trunk and top of 3.2 (nee 3.1) branch, and that the same procedure fails to provoke a bug using the top of the 3.0 branch, where the memory allocation code is different. I can also say that 2.95, being the last release to use cccp.c, handled stringification quite differently and is unlikely to have this bug. I haven't managed to reproduce the bug "in the wild" - i.e. using compilers I didn't build myself, or without instrumentation and tweaking. However, we have the original report from the FreeBSD people to say that it does occur in the wild. Is that good enough to call this a regression? zw