From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-ID: <B0000092184@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To: "Erik Berglund" <erik2 DOT berglund AT telia DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:07:00 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Re: gcc-crash - and a possible solution
In-reply-to: <MAPI.Id.0016.00333138303633303030303930303045@MAPI.to.RFC822>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990627170813 DOT 5761C-100000 AT is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 29 Jun 99, at 4:12, Erik Berglund wrote:

> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
> 
> > > 2)   binaries of gcc-2.95 19990615 You tested before where linked
> > >       with unmodified DJGPP-2.02. Current binaries (same place)
> > >       of gcc-2.95 19990623 are linked with 16 June CVS version of
> > >       DJGPP. However I doubt if there will be so serious changes in
> > >       related parts of libc.a
> 
> > Actually, there was one change that might be related: malloc mixed signed 
> > and unsigned in several places.  So I'd suggest to see if the latest 
> > binaries still have this problem.  Erik, could you please do that?
> 
> I'm sorry to say, I got a crash with the new CC1.EXE from 25 Jun 1999,
> 16:49, 1858978 bytes, after running my 3-program sequence.

It only means that the actual problem seems to be not fixed in 
CVS version of DJGPP up to June 16th. So unless we'll be able to 
found the real reason why it happens I'm afraid it will be stay so.

This is reason why I suggest to try to reproduce the problem with 
smaller test example. 

Also it would be usefull to test the same on a different system. 
Maybe somebody can try that on Win311. As I said before I don't 
have Win311 on machine I could test that.

Andris