From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18373 invoked by alias); 16 May 2003 18:36:04 -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 18289 invoked by uid 71); 16 May 2003 18:36:03 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030516183603.18287.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Dara Hazeghi Subject: Re: c/7733: Segmentation Fault with -ftest-coverage Reply-To: Dara Hazeghi X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01873.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/7733; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dara Hazeghi To: Simon.Wallis@arm.com Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/7733: Segmentation Fault with -ftest-coverage Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:35:47 -0700 (PDT) --- Simon Wallis wrote: > I've built my application with "-fprofile-arcs > -ftest-coverage -O1 -g" > using gcc 3.3 on solaris 2.8 > > The behaviour is exactly the same as gcc 3.2.3: > It builds OK, but on startup, reports > Program received signal SIGILL, Illegal > instruction. > 0x00210ff0 in atexit@@SYSVABI_1.3 () > > I rebuilt with "-fprofile-arcs -O1 -g" and got the > same SIGILL crash. > > I rebuilt with "-O1 -g" and the image ran fine. Darn. Could you send a testcase that exhibits this particular problem, so we can figure out whether this a SPARC bug, or a profiling bug? Thanks, Dara P.S. If it's possible for you to check that this occurs under linux/x86 on gcc 3.3 too, that'd be great. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com