Bug#122114: feedback wanted on your Debian report #122114
> Please could you recheck with gcc-3.0.4 and gcc-3.1 (in unstable) and
> send the arguments you pass to reproduce the segfault? which command
> line do you use for compiling?
I have checked with gcc 3.0.4 and it does not trigger the bug. Moreover,
I have checked with the binary that gave me the segfault (compiled with
3.0.2 or 3.0.3) and it doesn't segfault anymore.
I'm sorry I can't test with 3.1. Anyway, it seems the bug was elsewhere,
probably on glibc, as the same binary that segfaulted on two machines
now works fine, and also freshly compiled binaries don't reproduce it.
My belief is also reinforced by the fact that I tested 3.0.4 as soon as
it entered woody and, by then, the binaries produced by it segfaulted
while those from 2.95.4 didn't. Weird was the fact that the program
segfaulted AFTER exiting (on _exit()) and I didn't play with atexit() or
similar functions; actually the program didn't touch data outside its
own local data, so the segfault on _exit() seemed to be a bug on glibc,
but I filed the report for gcc-3.0 because gcc 2.95.4 proced a binary
that did not segfault.
As I no longer suffer this bug, I would not mind if it were closed.
P.S: please note I changed my email address. CC'ing 122114-submitter
should be okay as I closed the report and reopened it with the new address.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: