This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: preprocessor/8055: CPP0 segfault on FreeBSD + PATCH
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "ak03 at gte dot com" <ak03 at gte dot com>, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>,"gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:11:28 -0700
- Subject: Re: preprocessor/8055: CPP0 segfault on FreeBSD + PATCH
- References: <20020927195009.GB1115@codesourcery.com> <94330000.1033159820@warlock.codesourcery.com>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 01:50:20PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> --On Friday, September 27, 2002 12:50:09 PM -0700 Zack Weinberg
> <zack@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank you for this bug report. I've reproduced the problem, and
> >confirm your analysis. I'm going to do a complete bootstrap+test
> >cycle on a slight modification of your patch (see below) and will
> >apply to mainline if successful.
>
> I think we need to figure out if this is a regression before applying
> it to the branch. Just in case. If it is a regression, it's fine.
Reproducing the bug is a bit tricky; I have to instrument the buggy
routine and then adjust the filler text in the test case by hand.
3.0, 3.2 (nee 3.1), and mainline all want different lengths of filler
text.
I can say that I reproduced the bug under laboratory conditions using
top of trunk and top of 3.2 (nee 3.1) branch, and that the same
procedure fails to provoke a bug using the top of the 3.0 branch,
where the memory allocation code is different. I can also say that
2.95, being the last release to use cccp.c, handled stringification
quite differently and is unlikely to have this bug. I haven't managed
to reproduce the bug "in the wild" - i.e. using compilers I didn't
build myself, or without instrumentation and tweaking. However, we
have the original report from the FreeBSD people to say that it does
occur in the wild. Is that good enough to call this a regression?
zw