--- Comment #9 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-28 11:18
---
Yes, that did the trick. Thanks for fixing this!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42253
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-27 14:34
---
Thanks for reporting the problem.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-27 14:30
---
Subject: Bug 42253
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Feb 27 14:30:12 2010
New Revision: 157108
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157108
Log:
PR ada/42253
* gcc-interface/utils2.c (b
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-27 14:27
---
Subject: Bug 42253
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Feb 27 14:27:27 2010
New Revision: 157107
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157107
Log:
PR ada/42253
* gcc-interface/utils2.c (b
--- Comment #5 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 17:24
---
I was also surprised, because I couldn't see the relevance. To double check I
rebuilt one commit before (no crash) and at that commit (crash). That seems
pretty conclusive, especially as the testcase seems to fai
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 17:15
---
I'll fix the bug, but are you sure about the commit? It looks unrelated to the
problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42253
--- Comment #3 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 09:47
---
The reason I occasionally use a thin pointer is because they can be stored
atomically. This is sometimes useful.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42253
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-25 22:12
---
Miscompilations are always nasty I guess... Simply don't use thin pointers,
they are quite inefficient.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
