https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #42 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #41)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #40)
> > But I still haven't figured out why we need to allow 2 levels of recursion
> > for some of the cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #41 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #40)
> Created attachment 40316 [details]
> infinite d_print_comp printing protection
>
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #39)
> > Mark, could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40233|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #39 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Mark, could you please post your path to gcc-patches?
Then there might be a chance to get it into binutils before 2.28 gets released.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #38 from Mark Wielaard ---
For reference the symbols in comment #4 and the reduced case from comment #14
are fixed by the patch proposed for Bug 78252 - C++ demangler crashes with
infinite recursion with lambda (auto).
The patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #37 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #36)
> Does any of them handle the one from PR67738:
> _ZNK6Common15ConvertingRangeIN5boost12range_detail17transformed_rangeIZN1a1b1
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #36 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #33)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #32)
> > - PR70517
> > _ZSt4moveIRZN11tconcurrent6futureIvE4thenIZ5awaitIS2_EDaOT_EUlRKS6_E_EENS1_IN
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #35 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Marcel Böhme from comment #31)
> Hi Mark,
>
> Your patch looks good to me. One more thing: It seems that our patches
> evaluate these two mangled strings differently. Is it because of Nathan's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #34 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #26)
> Created attachment 40233 [details]
> d_print_comp with 1 level of recursion protection
>
> This is the variant that allows 1 level of recursion (with an xxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #33 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #32)
> - PR70517
> _ZSt4moveIRZN11tconcurrent6futureIvE4thenIZ5awaitIS2_EDaOT_EUlRKS6_E_EENS1_IN
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #32 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #27)
> I think the symbols containing 'Ul' should demangle -- they're lambdas and
> I'd expect my patch to fix those.
I applied your patch first and two more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #31 from Marcel Böhme ---
Hi Mark,
Your patch looks good to me. One more thing: It seems that our patches evaluate
these two mangled strings differently. Is it because of Nathan's patch? Can
these strings be demangled properly at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #30 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #29)
> On 12/02/2016 12:58 PM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Please also note that Nathan's lambda demangling patch needs adjustments,
> > because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #29 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 12/02/2016 12:58 PM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please also note that Nathan's lambda demangling patch needs adjustments,
> because with level 1 of recursion it prints everything twice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #28 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #26)
> Created attachment 40233 [details]
> d_print_comp with 1 level of recursion protection
>
> This is the variant that allows 1 level of recursion (with an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #27 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I think the symbols containing 'Ul' should demangle -- they're lambdas and I'd
expect my patch to fix those. Some of the others certainly look suspicious.
Did they come out of the compiler, or are they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40230|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #25 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #24)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> > Created attachment 40230 [details]
> > d_printing mark/walk/unmark protection
> >
> > (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> Created attachment 40230 [details]
> d_printing mark/walk/unmark protection
>
> (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #21)
> > Why doesn't a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #23 from Mark Wielaard ---
Created attachment 40231
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40231=edit
Check output with d_printing.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #22 from Mark Wielaard ---
Created attachment 40230
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40230=edit
d_printing mark/walk/unmark protection
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #21)
> Why doesn't a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #21 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Why doesn't a mark/walk/unmark idiom when walking a potentially circular data
structure work here? I.e. add a mutable counter to demangle_component.
Inc/dec at start/end of d_print_comp? IIUC if it gets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #20 from Mark Wielaard ---
Created attachment 40213
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40213=edit
Add is_cyclic check to d_lookup_template_argument
The patch that Marcel originally proposed tried to catch any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #18 from Marcel Böhme ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #17)
> Nathan's patch fixes this issue:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/701137/
> It is currently being reviewed.
It doesn't seem to fix the original issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #17 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Nathan's patch fixes this issue:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/701137/
It is currently being reviewed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #16 from Matt Godbolt ---
Just to be clear; I've been told GCC 6.2 is not required to compile the code I
linked; the earliest compiler it has been repro'd with is 4.9 (though we
haven't tested further back). It's also the mangled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Thanks for the testcase.
Marcel's patch fixes the segfault, but doesn't demangle the symbol.
markus@x4 libiberty % ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #14 from Matt Godbolt ---
Created attachment 40101
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40101=edit
compile with gcc 6.2 -std=c++14
This reproduces the issue. Compile with g++ 6.2 and -std=c++14 to create a file
which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #13 from Matt Godbolt ---
We will try and get a small repro case. It comes from open source software:
it's from the compiling_tests.cpp program in trompeloeil
(https://github.com/rollbear/trompeloeil/blob/master/compiling_tests.cpp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #11)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #10)
> > The symbol was demangled with libcxxabi's demangler.
> > The other two demanglers reject it.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #10)
> The symbol was demangled with libcxxabi's demangler.
> The other two demanglers reject it.
Thanks. Do you know which demangler is correct for this input
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #9)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #8)
> > This is what it should look like: [...]
>
> How did you demangle that input string?
> With the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #8)
> This is what it should look like: [...]
How did you demangle that input string?
With the proposed patch the mangled string is rejected by the libiberty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Robert Schiele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rschiele at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Matt Godbolt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at godbolt dot org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Pedro Alves changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palves at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #2 from Marcel Böhme ---
Here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00105.html
Pending review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Stephan Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbergman at redhat dot com
---
42 matches
Mail list logo
