https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57607
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testcase breaks again with gcc8 though, this time causing an ICE:
$ /usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++11 -framework CoreFoundation -lobjc test57607.mm
In file included from /usr/local/include/c++/8.0.0/bits/ios_base.h:46:0,
from /usr/local/include/c++/8.0.0/ios:42,
from /usr/local/include/c++/8.0.0/ostream:38,
from /usr/local/include/c++/8.0.0/iostream:39,
from test57607.mm:2:
/usr/local/include/c++/8.0.0/system_error:191:23: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
explicit operator bool() const noexcept
^~~~
libbacktrace could not find executable to open
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
Attaching gdb gives the following backtrace:
Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
Reason: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at address: 0x3a138e4c
0x0010d744 in make_conv_op_name ()
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0010d744 in make_conv_op_name ()
#1 0x00169ac7 in cp_parser_unqualified_id ()
#2 0x00169e49 in cp_parser_id_expression ()
#3 0x00169fb3 in cp_parser_parse_and_diagnose_invalid_type_name ()
#4 0x0015e084 in cp_parser_member_declaration ()
#5 0x0015ea24 in cp_parser_type_specifier ()
#6 0x0016f480 in cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq ()
#7 0x00174ab5 in cp_parser_simple_declaration ()
#8 0x00175bdf in cp_parser_block_declaration ()
#9 0x0017addc in cp_parser_declaration ()
#10 0x0017b21e in cp_parser_declaration_seq_opt ()
#11 0x0017b965 in cp_parser_namespace_definition ()
#12 0x0017aeb9 in cp_parser_declaration ()
#13 0x0017b21e in cp_parser_declaration_seq_opt ()
#14 0x0017b576 in c_parse_file ()
#15 0x00280a78 in c_common_parse_file ()
#16 0x00bee0e5 in compile_file ()
#17 0x01b02420 in toplev::main ()
#18 0x01b03a34 in main ()
I'll have to rebuild my gcc with debug info to get a better backtrace. It might
be an entirely different issue that's just triggered by the same testcase,
though, so I'm leaving this bug as UNCONFIRMED for now.
