X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=mAtu0enD2kM93j26
	lm/fpQRMndZkWwAj0eb4MkZAxq2xlk6nYNlRJ8tOu5DhjYrTl9F3txZTv1CTjYCe
	WUrCclRtqa6twaDFwK/Dd9WqGvdIM32otkh1FEE81KhmmiJdhOHBvPhPf8r2P4Nj
	xHJb53uzErriIGWhnldPKSF3sqY=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=BJstLePCa7AcJy1x6rv9cf
	K8fpA=; b=Er5mAY02TvfiT3rFQOWL4w+0TDD8WGSztnr6+IvcK8UNF4AaCbMqpc
	EyvCUOFnVnT8LJ7QJUDtv2vnba6r3M646qUFybKxk8yFtp4AhboePYD+vomrdCPl
	CHNz5tnZ7438F7Y8V0RG5XxrR2iRu/C6oe5DdWRp6Brd0DqRpSy8g=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=his
X-HELO:	mail-lf0-f42.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kGey+oxc/E+/A2qn4L9j/Od+9K0rGW4TpdYrPsJLQKA=; b=IN3e6pm2bs16rvwBYsg57y5Qi/RGs8c6yIZwx53aR3qnnLU0OcpkFLCYSLdY1i9lX7 QM1yeDHWiYwWfHLpSsim1I31lUgo3e4qecPxj4fFfvKdHctVdN/09mw/+cFSnOykIEZN SQHBqnAEUpqy0/MxN8URXkbbZe7oqQIYDcJze5tM2UmTWJXbppIaqzEKotXFUVcMhjZM d1BE0GWOfsnpoIGsq3iMrBcIj/BXC4EVxu1Dgo+CnwvoZNuMu/if+aE4rEtxqA7RfgUq pnSZwCMz+AptYf6h6MmXLb6sBaBuoPJsNVDMumFA6qKj8cWHnrarUdL2xt3FUvbCWkFq HbiA==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AHPjjUhCJik3UBWdKkBzwT/TFIbY01D4QUwW3HEV0sCM6BHWDTtcXktw ShH9O9gFG0DgGdYN+t+Q77+aLg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source:	AOwi7QCWZ7CikIDZ4H+HpPHQTN2LZDQkIlI9JEDAHVNZN1Y7DHHbf+okfkhnH3uedN6doiDR9p6ISQ==
X-Received:	by 10.46.86.6 with SMTP id k6mr8539478ljb.105.1507034236949; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 05:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:	Re: Segmentation fault with binutils 2.28.1
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<6d4a7eb5-0805-2e02-8ab9-aaf4442b80bd AT gmail DOT com> <59d37966 DOT 02c1ca0a DOT 656d6 DOT f878 AT mx DOT google DOT com>
From:	Marco Atzeri <marco DOT atzeri AT gmail DOT com>
Message-ID:	<81506abd-3ad6-94e7-9915-906756b3651e@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Oct 2017 14:37:04 +0200
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<59d37966.02c1ca0a.656d6.f878@mx.google.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On 03/10/2017 13:49, Steven Penny wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 07:48:51, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> I assume it is one of the reason why the compiler and binutils
>> you are using are still in test and not current
>>
>> @ mingw64-x86_64-binutils
>> version: 2.25.0.1.23f238d-1
>> [test]
>> version: 2.28.1.12c1f20d-1
>>
>> @ mingw64-x86_64-gcc-g++
>> version: 5.4.0-3
>> [test]
>> version: 6.3.0-1
> 
> Notice carefully that I did not saying anything about GCC 6.3.0 in this 
> thread.

Steven,
you wrote nothing at all.
So it is difficult to understand what is your exact issue as in
the past you blamed the compiler.
Error report should be clear and complete;
only links to other place are not enough.

> Also notice that you are incorrectly assuming that I am using GCC 6.3.0. 
> The
> binutils in question does not work with either 5.4.0 nor 6.3.0.
> 
>> As you shifted the target from g++ to binutils
> 
> I did this because binutils is the problem, not GCC:
> 
> - http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-09/msg00289.html
> - http://github.com/Martchus/tageditor/issues/23

I saw the comment from Martchus
"Note that when I had been using mingw-w64-binutils 2.28 (before recent 
update to 2.29) I didn't encounter this issue. I never tried 2.28.1."

So it does not seem an issue specif of 2.28

>> do you have evidence that 2.29 will solve the issue ?
> 
> It seems that both 2.28 and 2.29 both work, so instead of trying to
> troubleshoot we should probably just build a newer version and release 
> that as
> test:
> 
> http://github.com/Martchus/tageditor/issues/23#issuecomment-332686239

Have you built it ? Or are you only asking Jon to dedicate his time ?

Last time I had issue with cygwin binutils 2.25, I built the 2.28.90
and I verified that was solving the issue I saw.
I was not just expecting Jon to debug it alone.

https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-07/msg00013.html
https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-07/msg00084.html

Regards
Marco


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -