From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <9906231605.AA16115@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: gcc-crash - and a possible solution
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:05:26 -0600 (CDT)
Cc: erik2 DOT berglund AT telia DOT com, pavenis AT lanet DOT lv, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990623112921.13893J-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 23, 99 11:30:10 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
Content-Type: text
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
Precedence: bulk

> So I think the problem is not with stack but with the heap.  The heap
> is the first place to look for problems when the crashes are inside
> `malloc' or `free'.

We have a new malloc since the previous version - I would double check
it for signed/unsigned address clean and/or replace it with the old version.