From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13443 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2003 02:15:55 -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 13422 invoked by uid 61); 7 Jan 2003 02:15:54 -0000 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 02:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030107021554.13421.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, kendall@abinitio.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, kendall@abinitio.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/9211: [3.2 regression] Compiler segfault upon use of __noreturn__ function in static initializer X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00411.txt.bz2 List-Id: Old Synopsis: Compiler segfault upon use of __noreturn__ function in static initializer New Synopsis: [3.2 regression] Compiler segfault upon use of __noreturn__ function in static initializer State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Mon Jan 6 18:15:53 2003 State-Changed-Why: Confirmed. This is a regression on the 3.2 branch, it is fixed for 3.3 and 3.4. It also worked for 3.0. I guess the short answer for this is: don't do it. What should the semantics be anyway for something like this? However, it is a regression, so I leave it open while the 3.2.x branch is still alive. Thanks for your report Wolfgang http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9211