According to peter:
From peter Tue Jul 22 12:41:31 1997
Subject: gpi-hash.c segfaults To: gpc@hut.fi Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:41:31 +0200 (MEST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 1483
According to Bill Currie:
I just applied both sets of patches to gpc to take it up to 970721 (hopefully properly) and unfortunatly, gpc still segfaults in get_uid. [...] Hmm, I just tried out my previous sample file (under windows 95) and got a crash as well, so my above reasoning may be incorrect.
As you probably were afraid of already, I cannot reproduce the bug. :-(
Call frame traceback EIPs: 0x000ee4d0 _get_uid+32, line 134 of gpi-hash.c [...]
Just to be sure that we are talking about the same GPC: My line 134 of gpi-hash.c reads
for (l = hash_table[hi]; l && l->node; l =l->next)
If the "l &&" is missing or commented out in your version, this would be the origin of the error. :-(But it isn't. That would be too easy.)
the command line uses was:gpc -O2 -o foo.o -c foo.pas
It compiles fine on my system:
% gpc -O2 -o foo.o -c foo.pas foo.pas: In function `Dectobin': foo.pas:22: warning: return value of function not assigned
Sigh, this is getting frustrating (and probably more so for you, Peter)
Such is life. But it's good that you have found this error *now* and not later when gpc-2.1 will be released. That's what beta test phases are for. Thanks a lot for your patience with GPC!
Greetings,
Peter
Dipl.-Phys. Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer peter.gerwinski@uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [970201] maintainer GNU Pascal [970714] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]
On 22 Jul 97 at 13:07, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
As you probably were afraid of already, I cannot reproduce the bug. :-(
Yup, I suspected that. You use linux, don't you? Probably got a very different memory allocation scheme.
Just to be sure that we are talking about the same GPC: My line 134 of gpi-hash.c reads
for (l = hash_table[hi]; l && l->node; l =l->next)
Yes, that's the exact line in my version. What do you think of my theory about destroyed trees?
If the "l &&" is missing or commented out in your version, this would be the origin of the error. :-(But it isn't. That would be too easy.)
Much too easy :)
Such is life. But it's good that you have found this error *now* and not later when gpc-2.1 will be released. That's what beta test phases are for. Thanks a lot for your patience with GPC!
I'm glad I can be of some help. Bill -- Leave others their otherness.
-
Bill Currie -
Peter Gerwinski