On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 08:21:21AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> Good news, a fix has been imported and merged.
If I read the PR correctly, it states that ports like Mico were broken
on account of this?
And you just today fixed this? The reason I'm asking is because Mico
seems to break when I co
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:37:39PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> It seems than long-standing problem (see PR dated May '97:
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3441) with C++ exceptions in shared
Good news, a fix has been imported and merged.
--
-- David([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Uns
Without -fsjlj-exception flag under Linux program bails out with SIGABRT and
dumps core - most likely because C++ runtime call terminate() somewhere. I do
not think this has any relation to the problem I fixed but rather it has
soething to do with faulty rtti exception type matching code. I believ
On Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 09:07:28PM -0500, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote:
> Compiled without -fsjlj-exceptions, it dumps core.
Exactly same as FreeBSD, in the same place?
> I will be greatly surprised if OpenBSD will survive the test since
> their egcs looks like stock egcs 1.1.2 version which has n
> Why doesn't OpenBSD, Linux, or Solaris x86 need this patch?
I tried to compile and run attached program on dual-processor Compaq
Proliant server running RedHat Linux 6.1 at Compaq testdrive site (thanks,
Compaq!) and guess what? Compiled with -fsjlj-exceptions Linux bails out with
"Not enough m
Well,
I cannot comment on OpenBSD or Solaris, since I do not have access to them
right now. My guess is that OpenBSD and Solaris x86 either
1. do not use sjlj exception propagation, or
2. do not use _builtin_setjmp
Linux does not use sjlj exceptions for sure and as a result it is not affect
On Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 02:51:00PM -0500, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote:
> As I already pointed out in private message, this bug is in fact i386
> specific and it was wrong to fix it in gcc/except.c file. The real
> problem is that default builtin_setjmp implementation does not restore
> any registers
As I already pointed out in private message, this bug is in fact i386 specific
and it was wrong to fix it in gcc/except.c file. The real problem is that
default builtin_setjmp implementation does not restore any registers except for
stack pointers when doing nonlocal jump. This means, that every p
On Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 08:28:23PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > Index: contrib/gcc/except.c
> > ===
> > RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/contrib/gcc/except.c,v
> > [Nice patch stripped]
>
> Yeah, it works! (at least at a first glance). Da
"Alexander N. Kabaev" wrote:
> As promised, I tried to look into the problem little futher. The following
> patch fixes all crashes for me and I was unable to reproduce the bug anymore. I
> would really like to hear if it works for you too. I am especially interested
> to know if it works on Alph
As promised, I tried to look into the problem little futher. The following
patch fixes all crashes for me and I was unable to reproduce the bug anymore. I
would really like to hear if it works for you too. I am especially interested
to know if it works on Alpha, because I cannot test it myself.
P
I am sorry, my previous letter was incorrect. Compiling libgcc{_r}.a
without optimisation stopped _my_ test program and the program from PR from
crashing, but any attempt to rethrow the exception from the catch block in
Foo() results in signal 11 crash.
--
E-Mail:
Well, I tried to investigate this problem and the following is what I've found
so far: It looks like we are dealing with gcc -O code generation bug. I
recompiled libgcc and libgcc_r without -O flag and everything works just fine,
including the sample from PR3441. Unfortunately, I was unable to loc
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 10:01:42AM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > Is there are any compiler guys to address my question or not?
>
> There is, I'm the one. But there are a few things ahead in the queue.
> Of course a patc
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 10:01:42AM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > Is there are any compiler guys to address my question or not?
>
> There is, I'm the one. But there are a few things ahead in the queue.
Please excuse me if I've offended you, but I just doubted that no one
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 10:01:42AM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Is there are any compiler guys to address my question or not?
There is, I'm the one. But there are a few things ahead in the queue.
Of course a patch would make things go much faster.
--
-- David([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsu
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems than long-standing problem (see PR dated May '97:
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3441) with C++ exceptions in shared
> libraries is still here. It affects both -current and -stable branches and
> prevents some modern software (Mico for example
Hi,
It seems than long-standing problem (see PR dated May '97:
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3441) with C++ exceptions in shared
libraries is still here. It affects both -current and -stable branches and
prevents some modern software (Mico for example) from functioning properly.
-Ma
18 matches
Mail list logo
