On 13.09.2014 20:45, Dimitry Andric wrote: > After some massaging of gcc's source to disable its built-in segfault > handlers, I get this backtrace:
Do you get this with my core or finally able to reproduce it by yourself? > I think it's most likely this is some type of undefined behavior in gcc, > which leads to randomly corrupted tree values. Of course, it could also > be a clang bug, but I don't see any "64-bit" instructions in there at > all. > > This needs to be investigated further, but it's very hard to understand > what is going on the guts of gcc's parser. Let alone to reduce this to > some sort of reproducible test case. By first glance I see a lots of <optimized out> things. It is known that in edge cases gcc preserves more "unused" values than clang. It can be the possible case. I'll try to lower -O level preserving -march=core2 and see. -- http://ache.vniz.net/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
