Date:	Sun, 27 Jun 1999 17:13:07 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc:	Erik Berglund <erik2 DOT berglund AT telia DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Subject:	Re: Re: gcc-crash - and a possible solution
In-Reply-To:	<B0000091956@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990627170813.5761C-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> I still suggest to try to make a smaller test example that 
> reproduces the problem:

I agree, provided that we succeed in finding a smaller test case.

> cc1.exe, cc1plus.exe etc. are nothing else than large C
> programs that doesn't use any very special hacks 

This is probably true, but some surprises can still lurk in GCC's code.  
For example, it uses obstack which could assume all kinds of assumptions 
about memory addresses to manage memory efficiently.

> 2)   binaries of gcc-2.95 19990615 You tested before where linked
>       with unmodified DJGPP-2.02. Current binaries (same place)
>       of gcc-2.95 19990623 are linked with 16 June CVS version of
>       DJGPP. However I doubt if there will be so serious changes in
>       related parts of libc.a

Actually, there was one change that might be related: malloc mixed signed 
and unsigned in several places.  So I'd suggest to see if the latest 
binaries still have this problem.  Erik, could you please do that?

- Raw text -