--- Comment #11 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-17 11:05
---
This got fixed by the patch for PR 25413.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25413 ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-02-23 15:17 ---
I have reported a similar problem bug20122 which may be caused by the same bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-05-09 08:24 ---
I cannot reproduce this bug any longer. Maybe the fix for pr20122 also helps
here.
Michael Cieslinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19716
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-31 23:28
---
I can still reproduce this with today's mainline. The segfault still
happens in a movapd instruction:
0x08048389 <_Z1fv+21>: movapd %xmm0,(%eax)
(gdb) info registers eax
eax0xbfffe944
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-31 00:41
---
Created an attachment (id=8109)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8109&action=view)
Preprocessed sources
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19716
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19716
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-31
00:45 ---
This might be a dup of bug 17589 which looks more like a glibc bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19716
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-31 00:56
---
Here is a self-contained testcase:
--
struct A {
double values[3];
A () {
for (unsigned int i=0; i!=3; ++i)
values[i] = 0;
}
};
double f() {
A va
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-31 01:01
---
BTW, I have glibc 2.3.3, which in the other PR is specifically listed as
a version for which the bug doesn't happen. So this is not a duplicate.
The system as a whole is suse 9.2, right out of the box.
W.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-31
01:32 ---
Hmm, there is an alignment check there, this seems werid. Just to check does
-fno-ivopt help. I was
looking through the asm but I cannot figure out where exactly the problem is.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-31 03:11
---
Nope, -fno-ivopts doesn't make any difference.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19716
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-10
23:13 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt
12 matches
Mail list logo
