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 8173B3858C52; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 08:45:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8173B3858C52
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1706172339;
	bh=+nf7m0KYb7jykOLrW3uwxx8v3VkQ8qe6mgt+43nK00A=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=QsDoax5xw38w13ivbJl4ypqVpmYQvsuechu3X8kH/xRXU007IT3a2V7awyTeNmaEl
	 Q3C5VtPXiQkv2pMsJ1e0KsAMGY44ckVZgnCLuMRG7tnN5nImHpDvYFQfepQ9Th7g/O
	 i8yDHNbCOx2zYh7x2xwoYaldEyJTdrfCsx14cdwQ=
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 08:45:37 +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: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
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-f6C7KGmbd5@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 #13 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #12)
> I made what I think is a fairly minimal reproducer: https://godbolt.org/z=
/rbevnhG1f

Great.

> Does this look sufficient to file a gcc bug?

I've managed to get rid of the template bit.

Also, I've removed the includes, the goal is to minimize the size of the
preprocessed example.

Futhermore, I've replaced the new with an object declaration, which allows =
for
simpler expressions ('.' instead of '->').

So, I get to:
...
struct intrusive_list_node {
  void *next;
};

struct dummy {
  void *base;
};

struct thread_info : public dummy, public intrusive_list_node {
  intrusive_list_node node;
};

static thread_info ti;

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);
}
...

gcc-13:
...
$ g++ test.cpp; ./a.out; echo $?
0
...

gcc-14:
...
$ g++ test.cpp; ./a.out; echo $?
1
...

I think this should be good enough to file.

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