--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
21:30 ---
I have just verified it was fixed, thanks DJ.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From dj at redhat dot com 2004-12-07 20:02 ---
Subject: Re: segfault on a huge switch statement.
I have pushed that change out.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18602
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:52 ---
DJ, are you going to push your new splay_tree_delete_helper? If it works,
this fixes a regression wrt. earlier GCCs...
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dj at redhat dot com 2004-11-22 21:36 ---
Subject: Re: segfault on a huge switch statement.
> Confirmed, the problem is because of stack overflow. Either
> splay_tree_delete_helper needs a little help or the C/C++ front-end
> needs to stop using splay tree
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-22
00:50 ---
Use a seperate stack instead of using function stack.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18602
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-22
00:47 ---
I am not sure what we are supposed to do with this. Any kind of tree traversal
and deletion is inherently recursive, and will hit a segfault sooner or later,
if you push it hard enough. If an user really ne
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-21
23:20 ---
Confirmed, the problem is because of stack overflow.
Either splay_tree_delete_helper needs a little help or the C/C++ front-end
needs to stop using splay
trees.
#553 0x0033a4a0 in splay_tree_delete_helper
