--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-30 23:21
---
Subject: Bug 27094
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Apr 30 23:21:38 2006
New Revision: 113399
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113399
Log:
PR c++/27094
* pt.c
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-30 23:25
---
Subject: Bug 27094
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Apr 30 23:25:44 2006
New Revision: 113400
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113400
Log:
PR c++/27094
* pt.c
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27094
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 11:46 ---
It is a GC problem, when build_over_call calls mark_used, it certainly doesn't
expect mark_used to do a gcc_collect underneath it, as it has several tree
pointers stored in local variables. I guess build_over_call
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 11:34
---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase
(compile with g++ --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0):
=
struct A
{
~A();
};
struct B : A
{
B();
};
templateint struct C
{
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:22 ---
Here is another testcase (which was reduced from the same source and gives a
similar error message but does not have inheritance in it):
templatetypename _Tp struct allocator
{
~allocator() throw() { }
};
struct
