[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#317233: gcc-4.0 regression, possibly powerpc-specific, causes segfault in compiled binary



Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.0-11
Severity: normal

If I compile schroot

http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/schroot/schroot_0.1.2-1.dsc
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/schroot/schroot_0.1.2.orig.tar.gz
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/schroot/schroot_0.1.2-1.diff.gz

with gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4, the resulting binary works.  If I build with
gcc-4.0, it segfaults.  Try "schroot --help", for example.

The problem only because apparent when the gcc-defaults changed to
default to 4.0.

I've tried compiling with nearly every gcc warning enabled, but I
couldn't find anything other than trivial warnings.  I've also reviewed
the code, but can't see anything wrong.  The code is fairly simple;
I'm not using any GCC extensions, just plain C99 source.

The fault occurs shortly after startup, calling parse_options()
(schroot/schroot.c).

If it would be useful, I can reduce it to a smaller test case, but the
code worked just fine with 3.3.


Regards,
Roger

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

Versions of packages gcc-4.0 depends on:
ii  binutils                    2.15-7       The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii  cpp-4.0                     4.0.0-11     The GNU C preprocessor
ii  gcc-4.0-base                4.0.0-11     The GNU Compiler Collection (base 
ii  libc6                       2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libgcc1                     1:4.0.0-11   GCC support library

Versions of packages gcc-4.0 recommends:
ii  libc6-dev                   2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Development Librari
ii  libmudflap0-dev             4.0.0-11     GCC mudflap support libraries (dev

-- no debconf information



Reply to: