[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362 --- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-29 18:18:42 UTC --- Author: ktietz Date: Wed Sep 29 18:18:38 2010 New Revision: 164729 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164729 Log: 2010-09-29 Kai Tietz kai.ti...@onevision.com PR preprocessor/45362 * directives.c (cpp_pop_definition): Make static. (do_pragma_push_macro): Reworked to store text definition. (do_pragma_pop_macro): Add free text definition. (cpp_push_definition): Removed. * include/cpplib.h (cpp_push_definition): Removed. (cpp_pop_definition): Likewise. * internal.h (def_pragma_macro): Remove member 'value' and add new members 'definition', 'line', 'syshdr', 'sued' and 'is_undef'. * pch.c (_cpp_restore_pushed_macros): Rework to work on text definition and store additional macro flags. (_cpp_save_pushed_macros): Likewise. Modified: trunk/libcpp/ChangeLog trunk/libcpp/directives.c trunk/libcpp/include/cpplib.h trunk/libcpp/internal.h trunk/libcpp/pch.c
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362 Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #19 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-29 18:33:50 UTC --- Fixed on trunk.
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #14 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 14:01 --- Created an attachment (id=21820) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21820action=view) testcase for problem As this test need more then on header, please extract it and compile then main.c to reproduce it. At least I was able to do this on linux64 by this testcase. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #15 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 18:37 --- (In reply to comment #14) Created an attachment (id=21820) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21820action=view) [edit] testcase for problem As this test need more then on header, please extract it and compile then main.c to reproduce it. At least I was able to do this on linux64 by this testcase. Patch for it posted to ML. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01394.html -- ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2010-09-16 17:04:34 |2010-09-17 18:37:19 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #16 from t7 at gmail dot com 2010-09-18 01:04 --- (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #14) Created an attachment (id=21820) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21820action=view) [edit] testcase for problem As this test need more then on header, please extract it and compile then main.c to reproduce it. At least I was able to do this on linux64 by this testcase. Patch for it posted to ML. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01394.html Hi, it failed produce problem with attached testcase both the gcc and xgcc. I extracted it and compile with -c main.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #17 from t7 at gmail dot com 2010-09-18 01:14 --- (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #14) Created an attachment (id=21820) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21820action=view) [edit] testcase for problem As this test need more then on header, please extract it and compile then main.c to reproduce it. At least I was able to do this on linux64 by this testcase. Patch for it posted to ML. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01394.html Thanks a-lot Kai! This patch fixes ICE in PR45666. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build, GC, ice-on-valid-code Summary|Dangling reference about|[4.6 Regression] Dangling |saved cpp_macro for push/pop|reference about saved |macro |cpp_macro for push/pop macro Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 22:00 --- GC issues normally don't show at different times depending on the layout of memory and such. Sometimes it depends on env variables being slightly different. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #10 from t7 at gmail dot com 2010-09-16 22:03 --- Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. gt_ggc_mx_cpp_macro (x_p=value optimized out) at gtype-desc.c:2078 2078 ((*x).params[i0]) ? HT_IDENT_TO_GCC_IDENT (HT_NODE (((*x).params[i0]))) : NULL; (gdb) bt #0 gt_ggc_mx_cpp_macro (x_p=value optimized out) at gtype-desc.c:2078 #1 0x004caee5 in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:537 #2 0x004cb0c3 in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:370 #3 0x004cbcc8 in gt_ggc_mx_c_binding (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:103 #4 0x004cbcf2 in gt_ggc_mx_c_binding (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:106 #5 0x004caea6 in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:549 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #11 from t7 at gmail dot com 2010-09-16 22:06 --- But too bad this file 'gtype-desc.c' is automatically generated at build time. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 22:28 --- Can you try compiling it with --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0 ? Perhaps you'll trigger it then more reliably... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
[Bug preprocessor/45362] [4.6 Regression] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #13 from t7 at gmail dot com 2010-09-16 22:33 --- (In reply to comment #12) Can you try compiling it with --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0 ? Perhaps you'll trigger it then more reliably... Without it: GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096 Compiler executable checksum: 7ccff28a2de01cef50407f25bf137180 Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. gt_ggc_mx_cpp_macro (x_p=value optimized out) at gtype-desc.c:2078 2078 ((*x).params[i0]) ? HT_IDENT_TO_GCC_IDENT (HT_NODE (((*x).params[i0]))) : NULL; (gdb) bt #0 gt_ggc_mx_cpp_macro (x_p=value optimized out) at gtype-desc.c:2078 With it: GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0 Compiler executable checksum: 7ccff28a2de01cef50407f25bf137180 Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. gt_ggc_mx_cpp_macro (x_p=value optimized out) at gtype-desc.c:2078 2078 ((*x).params[i0]) ? HT_IDENT_TO_GCC_IDENT (HT_NODE (((*x).params[i0]))) : NULL; (gdb) bt #0 gt_ggc_mx_cpp_macro (x_p=value optimized out) at gtype-desc.c:2078 #1 0x004caee5 in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:537 #2 0x004cb0c3 in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:370 #3 0x004cbcc8 in gt_ggc_mx_c_binding (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:103 #4 0x004cbcf2 in gt_ggc_mx_c_binding (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:106 #5 0x004caea6 in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:549 #6 0x004cad62 in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:350 #7 0x004cb00d in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:413 #8 0x004caf8c in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node (x_p=value optimized out) at ./gt-c-decl.h:393 I see no diff, do you mean compile the code that caused crash or compile the xgcc or gcc over again? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
