From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22374 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2003 01:19:51 -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 22355 invoked by uid 61); 8 Jan 2003 01:19:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030108011950.22354.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, sander_pool@pobox.com From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, sander_pool@pobox.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/9100: [3.3/3.4 regression] illegal binary constant causes gcc to seg fault X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00498.txt.bz2 List-Id: Old Synopsis: illegal binary constant causes gcc to seg fault New Synopsis: [3.3/3.4 regression] illegal binary constant causes gcc to seg fault State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Tue Jan 7 17:19:50 2003 State-Changed-Why: A minimal testcase is this (just this one line): ------------------------- int i = (0b11111000 == 0); ------------------------- It crashes both the C and C++ front ends with a SegFault. This is a regression from gcc3.2 that happens both on the 3.3 branch as well as on the mainline. It also happens on x86-Linux, not only the win-x-avr crosscompiler for which the report initially was. W. The crash for me: tmp/g> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.3-pre/bin/gcc x.c x.c:1:9: invalid suffix "b11111000" on integer constant x.c:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See for instructions. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9100