------- Comment #20 from t66667 at gmail dot com 2009-09-06 22:14 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> Try building without the patch but with unlimited stack (ulimit -s unlimited)
> and see if the same error appears.
>
Actually can't try this because I'm using the native compiler to build qt4.(In
reply to comment #19)
> Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] crashed compile Qt4 gui
> library
>
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, t66667 at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > ------- Comment #18 from t66667 at gmail dot com 2009-09-06 21:59 -------
> > (In reply to comment #17)
> > > The patch bootstrapped and tested ok but I'm holding off until you
> > > confirm it's
> > > not the reason for the issue you see.
> > >
> > I can confirm, that indeed patch fixed this bug.
> > Yes patch bootstrapped and cross compiled and compiled the cross compiler
> > and
> > native compiler ok, what I meant was this patch actually causes another new
> > regression/issues to surface. I am using the 64-bit x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++
> > binary on windows to compile qt4 what is happening now is that it will
> > compile
> > qmake.exe just fine. As soon as qmake.exe is run ie, "qmake.exe
> > qt-all-opensource-src-4.5.2/src/plugins/accessible/widgets/widgets.pro -o
> > Makefile -spec win32-g++" it crashes.
> > It should be another issue, should I make another bug report then?
> > You can close this bug as resolved.
>
> Well, the patch may cause this issue, no?
yes
> Before the patch qmake
> didn't build?
no. Before the patch qmake was built and running ok.
> So I asked you to fix this bug by increasing the
> maximum stack size and not by applying the patch to see if the patch
> causes the qmake issue.
Well I think we have some misunderstanding here, initially it is cc1plus.exe
that crash g++ (native) built the
qt4 - qmake.exe ok
- qt4 src/core ok
- qt4 src/gui failed (cc1plus.exe crashed)
>
> Or is there a reason the patch can't be the reason for the qmake failure?
I think the patch should be the reason for qmake crash, but, before the patch I
tested with gcc revision 151400, now with gcc revision 151458 + patch applied.
Could this be the reason?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41254
