From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24346 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2002 21:16:01 -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 24323 invoked by uid 71); 10 Nov 2002 21:16:01 -0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021110211601.24322.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Volker Reichelt Subject: Re: c++/8511: (hopefully) reproducible cc1plus SIGSEGV. Reply-To: Volker Reichelt X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00491.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/8511; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Volker Reichelt To: wwieser@gmx.de, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/8511: (hopefully) reproducible cc1plus SIGSEGV. Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:03:15 +0100 > 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. I suppose it's *not* a "Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault". Did I get you rught? > 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. I just tried gcc 3.2 on your sources, but I only get an ICE. However, since you haven't provided a preprocessed source, I'm probably compiling different code than you. Can you generate a preprocessed source that also causes a segfault? If yes, could you please send the preprocessed file? If no, then something strange is happening :-( My first wild guess would be that the compiler ran out of memory when compiling your source. Can you make sure that this is not the reason (i.e. by using a swap device that is large enough)? You might have hardware problems: for example faulty memory (you could try to swap your chips if you have multiple banks of memory). I remember one PR where a faulty BIOS was responsible for strange gcc errors (are BIOS upgrades available for your board). Good luck, Volker PS: gcc-prs is a read-only list and therefore always bounces, just don't send any mail to that address. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8511