Re: c++/8511: (hopefully) reproducible cc1plus SIGSEGV.

[wwieser@gmx.de]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8511; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: wwieser@gmx.de
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
        nobody@gcc.gnu.org, reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/8511: (hopefully) reproducible cc1plus SIGSEGV.
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 14:19:44 +0100

 On Sunday 10 November 2002 00:54, reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de wrote:
 > Synopsis: (hopefully) reproducible cc1plus SIGSEGV.
 >
 Thanks for your reply, but...
 
 > State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
 > State-Changed-By: reichelt
 > State-Changed-When: Sat Nov  9 15:54:52 2002
 > State-Changed-Why:
 >     Confirmed.
 >
 >     Compiling the code with gcc 3.2 I get an internal compiler error.
 >     The problem can be reduced to the following code snippet:
 >
 >     ------------------------snip here--------------------
 > [...]
 >     ------------------------snip here--------------------
 >
 >     Compiling this with gcc 3.2 (just "g++ -c") I get the
 >     following ICE:
 >
 >     In fact, the short testcase crashes gcc since 2.95.x.
 >
 The point is something different. I get a real SIGSEGV, NOT an internal 
 compiler error. Sadly, I have quite a lot of heavy template code which 
 triggers internal compiler errors (I reported one of them some time back 
 and it is not yet fixed), but this one really makes gcc SIGSEGV. 
 
 Also, the debugger shows the suspicious address 0xa5a5a5a5 which might 
 indicate some more serious bug inside the compiler than simply a missing 
 C++ language feature. 
 
 So, please tell me if you can reproduce a SIGSEGV, and not an internal 
 compiler error. 
 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&
 >pr=8511