From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26763 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2002 18:37:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26756 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 18:37:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 18:37:32 -0000 Received: from warlock.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9FIZLh11476; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:35:21 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:15:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org cc: aoliva@redhat.com, jason@redhat.com, nathan@codesourcery.com Subject: PR 8134: C++ crash Message-ID: <107620000.1034706921@warlock.codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00848.txt.bz2 PR 8134 is a crash in force_store_init_value on the branch; it is a regression. The root problem here is that we were not handling zero-initialization of pointers to members correctly. Alexandre tried to fix the problem, but in the process introduced the crashes above. This was resolved on the mainline with a rather substantial reworking of class layout code; that was my patch to create a separate base class variant of each type. What should we do on the branch? The obvious choices are: a) Nothing In this case, stuff blows up badly. b) Move my changes over. As far as we know, these are correct -- but they are substantial, and therefore risky. c) Revert Alexandre's patch. In this case, we get back to GCC 3.0-like behavior; incorrect zero-initialization of some pointers-to-members. I don't like any of these choices. I think I lean towards (c), merely as a "devil you know" kind of choice. I can also do (b), if people feel that's the right thing, but I'm nervous about somehow making an inadvertant ABI change in the minor release. Thoughts? -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com