On Monday 07 July 2008 10:40:05 Jan Niehusmann wrote: > Hi Sune, > > (Cc: to all the other addresses, because just removing the 3 patches may > not give meaningfull results.)
Removing those for now. > I just did a similar thing: I did not comment the three patches, but > just added a single if(isnan(...)) abort(); for debugging purposes. But > now, the segfault doesn't occur any more. > > AFAICT, there are only two possible explanations: Either the bug doesn't > happen with my toolchain (perhaps the compiler version is different than > the one used to compile the debian qt package?), or it's some > missoptimization by gcc which went away with the additional code line. > > Next, I'll try it with an unmodified source. > > If this still 'fixes' the problem, the core of the bug is much more > difficult to find. The good news would be, that a simple recompile > of qt on an up-to-date system probably would solve (or work around) > the segfault. I have been reviewing build logs between -2 and -3. and there isn't many differences, except 1. -2 is built with gcc4.2. -3 is built with gcc4.3. So it might very well be a miscompilation or misoptimization. Those are though a bit out of my scope of knowledge. There has been a few gcc-4.3 uploads since then though. /Sune -- Man, do you know how can I do for linking a server over the mailer? From the file inside Internet Explorer you neither should ever ping to the printer, nor have to send to a RO 3D periferic for mounting the coaxial SCSI window. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
