http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47209
Zdenek Sojka <zsojka at seznam dot cz> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|ICE: SIGSEGV in |ICE: SIGSEGV in
|should_emit_struct_debug |should_emit_struct_debug
|(dwarf2out.c:627) with |(dwarf2out.c:627) with
|-femit-struct-debug-baseonl |-f{no-,}emit-struct-debug-{
|y -g |baseonly,reduced} -g
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka <zsojka at seznam dot cz> 2011-01-08 20:45:38
UTC ---
It fails the same way with -f{no-,}emit-struct-debug-reduced and
-f{no-,}emit-struct-debug-baseonly , with very similiar crash location and the
same backtrace:
$ gcc -femit-struct-debug-reduced -g pr47209.C
==15753== Invalid read of size 2
==15753== at 0x78AC90: should_emit_struct_debug (dwarf2out.c:624)
pr47209.C:6:8: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
$ gcc -fno-emit-struct-debug-reduced -g pr47209.C
==15579== Invalid read of size 2
==15579== at 0x78AC90: should_emit_struct_debug (dwarf2out.c:624)
pr47209.C:6:8: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
$ gcc -femit-struct-debug-baseonly -g pr47209.C
==5087== Invalid read of size 2
==5087== at 0x78AC0E: should_emit_struct_debug (dwarf2out.c:627)
pr47209.C:6:8: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
$ gcc -fno-emit-struct-debug-baseonly -g pr47209.C
==13603== Invalid read of size 2
==13603== at 0x78AC0E: should_emit_struct_debug (dwarf2out.c:627)
pr47209.C:6:8: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't know if the code is valid or invalid (I have no clue what is the
> meaning of "base::foo;").
According to people ##C++ at irc.freenode.org, it is equivalent to "using
base::foo;", in some pre-standard notation (if I understood that correctly).
