This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/8067: g++ 3.2 internal error: Segmentation fault
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Pop Sébastian <pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org, y_fedor at ciam dot ru, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 06 Oct 2002 21:10:01 +0200
- Subject: Re: c++/8067: g++ 3.2 internal error: Segmentation fault
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <200209301735.TAA97382@numa6.igpm.rwth-aachen.de> <20020930172844.GA5590@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr> <20020930195833.GD5590@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr> <wvln0pycx3b.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com> <20021006185950.GC6197@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr>
Pop Sébastian <pop@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
| Hi Jason,
|
| On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:44:24AM +0100, Jason Merrill wrote:
| > Thanks, but your patch is just a workaround; the problem is that we think
| > we're dealing with a variable declared in the for-init-stmt, but we really
| > aren't.
| Ok, so we have to teach G++ that __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ is not a local declaration
| in the FOR_INIT.
More specifically, we have to teach the front-end about gracious
handling of similar erroneous constructs in the for-init-statement.
| What about the following patch for solving the PR following the first suggestion?
Does it handle similar constructs where you replace
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ with another id-expression? I'm under the
impression that it does not.
-- Gaby