From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 599913858409; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 12:38:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 599913858409
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1706186287;
	bh=wyBOFAaYwihJCs6jYivNOkO70io31cyI60RJD6oBVOY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=LTLqeE76WWUwklotA0nz3h56Pb4vIh1mmprFuEKKW/Ltrr+p4dRkydXzPSLwNhf0E
	 AicZbLOLeeDo/fzg0nKhvNVD/HNhJuRWgm0WSNw3NgS1gfX4bx3PO/N+FJJLxAICo+
	 3RhUZlcSwaSLRo5YAUJ1aKHZ6+y+k50S+6mgi91U=
From: "simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug gdb/31281] [gdb] intrusive_list.h:329: internal-error:
 push_back: Assertion elem_node->prev == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE failed.
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 12:38:06 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-31281-4717-3Fp7BtQSsW@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-31281-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-31281-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D31281

--- Comment #14 from Simon Marchi <simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #13)
> (In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #12)
> > I made what I think is a fairly minimal reproducer: https://godbolt.org=
/z/rbevnhG1f
>=20
> Great.
>=20
> > Does this look sufficient to file a gcc bug?
>=20
> I've managed to get rid of the template bit.
>=20
> Also, I've removed the includes, the goal is to minimize the size of the
> preprocessed example.
>=20
> Futhermore, I've replaced the new with an object declaration, which allows
> for simpler expressions ('.' instead of '->').
>=20
> So, I get to:
> ...
> struct intrusive_list_node {
>   void *next;
> };
>=20
> struct dummy {
>   void *base;
> };
>=20
> struct thread_info : public dummy, public intrusive_list_node {
>   intrusive_list_node node;
> };
>=20
> static thread_info ti;
>=20
> int main (void) {
>   auto thread_info::*MemberNode =3D &thread_info::node;
>   auto node_ptr_1 =3D &(ti.*MemberNode);
>   auto node_ptr_2 =3D &ti.node;
>   return !(node_ptr_1 =3D=3D node_ptr_2);
> }
> ...
>=20
> gcc-13:
> ...
> $ g++ test.cpp; ./a.out; echo $?
> 0
> ...
>=20
> gcc-14:
> ...
> $ g++ test.cpp; ./a.out; echo $?
> 1
> ...
>=20
> I think this should be good enough to file.

Thank you very much for that, filed:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113599

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=