Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:26:57 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Strange behavior of compiler.
In-Reply-To: <3b31a893.176123084@news.primus.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010621162348.10384G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Graaagh the Mighty wrote:

> There was
> a bug in one of the debugging bits I added that would in fact have
> jumped into never-never land -- *if* "bar" had ever been reached. So
> why weren't the call frame traceback EIPs more like:
> 
>   0x01fc0000   0x1fc0000
>   0x00f00ba7   _bar+42, line 666 of bwlsm.c
>   0x0000178b   _main+275, line 195 of bwlsm.c
>   0x00057b7a   ___crt1_startup+174
> 
> even with no aggressive optimizations?

I can think about any number of possible bugs which could scrogg the 
stack so badly that SYMIFY would dance a tarantella instead of producing
a traceback.  If you want a real answer, please tell a bit more about the
bug you discovered, and maybe even show a short code fragment with the
buggy code.