From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23192 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2002 19:36:01 -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 23177 invoked by uid 71); 14 Nov 2002 19:36:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021114193601.23176.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Zack Weinberg Subject: Re: c++/8511: (hopefully) reproducible cc1plus SIGSEGV. Reply-To: Zack Weinberg X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00693.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/8511; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Zack Weinberg To: Wolfgang Wieser Cc: mark@codesourcery.com, Volker Reichelt , gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/8511: (hopefully) reproducible cc1plus SIGSEGV. Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:29:23 -0800 Wolfgang Wieser writes: >> That prevents the invalid access. Your test case then carries on to >> crash in c_expand_expr, which is the other bug that we already know >> about, and Volker found a reduced test case for. I'm cc:ing Mark for >> comments, he's a lot more familiar with this part of the compiler than >> I am. I'm a bit concerned that this does not happen when unrelated >> parts of the code are changed; the original data corruption could be >> even earlier. FYI, I will be posting an updated patch for the data corruption bug later today; comments would be nice. > Okay, I just found the e-mail containing a test case triggering a bug in > c_expand_expr: > > ----------------------------snip here--------------------------- > template class A > { > template friend int foo(); > }; > > A<0> a; > > template int foo() { return J; } > > void bar() { foo<0,0>(); } > ----------------------------snip here--------------------------- > > This test case was generously provided by Volker Reichelt .. :) > and can be accessed as problem report 6971 (filed by me). This bug is still reproducible with the 3.2.1 prerelease and with CVS HEAD. I get a different ICE with 2.95. Hopefully this will get fixed in 3.3, but I cannot promise anything. Since this bug is c++/6971, do you agree we can close c++/8511 once the segmentation fault is patched? zw