Your message dated Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:55:10 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line g++-3.1: More info on this bug
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2002 21:22:26 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jun 11 16:22:26 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from duvel.xs4all.nl (juarez.icicle.dhs.org) [213.84.36.58] (postfix)
        by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
        id 17Ht5t-0007dG-00; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:22:25 -0500
Received: from spark.icicle.dhs.org (spark.icicle.dhs.org [192.168.1.6])
        by juarez.icicle.dhs.org (Postfix) with SMTP
        id 7E7E83B6; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:20:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by spark.icicle.dhs.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 11 Jun 2002 
23:20:50 +0200
Subject: g++-3.1: Internal error (segfault) during compilation
Reply-To: Ivo Timmermans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Ivo Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.99.36
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:20:49 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  using "Reply-To" header
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Package: g++-3.1
Version: 1:3.1.1-0pre2
Severity: normal

Create an empty file, with only these three lines:

        #include <string>
        #include <vector>
        #include <iostream>

Compile it with g++-3.1 foo.cc, which yields the following:

        In file included from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/bits/basic_ios.h:41,
                         from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/ios:51,
                         from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/ostream:45,
                         from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/iostream:45,
                         from foo.cc:3:
        /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/bits/locale_facets.h:1114: internal error: 
Segmentation fault
        Please submit a full bug report,
        with preprocessed source if appropriate.
        See <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html> for instructions.

(The preprocessed code is available on request.)  The choice of
options to g++, or the environment don't really seem to make a
difference.  What does make a difference, is what headers are
included.  If i leave out vector, it gets:

        In file included from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/bits/codecvt.h:333,
                         from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/bits/locale_facets.h:422,
                         from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/bits/basic_ios.h:41,
                         from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/ios:51,
                         from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/ostream:45,
                         from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/iostream:45,
                         from stl-vector-test.cc:2:
        /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/i386-linux/bits/codecvt_specializations.h:175: 
internal
           error: Segmentatie fout
        Please submit a full bug report,
        with preprocessed source if appropriate.
        See <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html> for instructions.

Leaving out string _and_ vector makes it compile.

Leaving out only string gives the error as above (the first one).

Actually, the exact location of the error seems to differ:

        In file included from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/ostream:275,
                         from /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/iostream:45,
                         from stl-vector-test.cc:2:
        /usr/include/g++-v3-3.1/bits/ostream.tcc:203: internal error: 
Segmentation
           fault


Hope you can make sense of all this :)


-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux spark 2.4.18-xfs-1.1 #3 do apr 25 13:15:27 CEST 2002 i586
Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Versions of packages g++-3.1 depends on:
ii  gcc-3.1                    1:3.1.1-0pre2 The GNU C compiler.
ii  gcc-3.1-base               1:3.1.1-0pre2 The GNU Compiler Collection (base 
ii  libc6                      2.2.5-6       GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libstdc++4-dev             1:3.1.1-0pre2 The GNU stdc++ library version 3 (

-- no debconf information


---------------------------------------
Received: (at 149708-done) by bugs.debian.org; 19 Jun 2002 17:55:23 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 19 12:55:23 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from duvel.xs4all.nl (juarez.icicle.dhs.org) [213.84.36.58] (postfix)
        by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
        id 17Kjfu-0006w8-00; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:55:22 -0500
Received: by juarez.icicle.dhs.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
        id 02E773B5; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:55:10 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:55:10 +0200
From: Ivo Timmermans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: g++-3.1: More info on this bug
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> Since this bug proved to be unreproducible on other machines, I'm
> providing you with some more info:

And it has vanished now...  Maybe the reboot fixed it, or some other
(non-depended-on) package was upgraded, I don't know.

Closing.


        Ivo

--=20
Kurz bevor das Space-Shuttle in die Erdumlaufbahn eintritt, wird es
von einer Horde Grizzlyb=C3=A4ren angegriffen.
        - Nichtlustig


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to