Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 18524

Summary: g++ crashes on one invalid input and one valid one
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Omnifarious <hopper>
Component: gccAssignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2000-10-10 14:05:18 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 18764, 18765    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Omnifarious 2000-10-06 13:47:56 UTC 
g++ 2.96 has crashed on me twice now.  One time it crashed when I hadn't
put in the header that gave a definition for a class I was using.
The other time it crashed on some code that used the GNU named return value
optimization, which is non-standard, but supposedly supported by g++.

gcc GNATS tracking numbers: c++/611  c++/613

The compiler should not crash.

I entered these bugs into the GNATS system for gcc, and I recieved an
eventual message on gcc-announce claiming the gcc-2.96 was considered to be
a pre-release version, and while C, and FORTRAN were likely to still work,
the C++ compiler probably had a number of issues.
I understand some eagerness to put in new versions of things.  Especially
since the new gcc seems to have much better per-processor optimizations for
the x86 family of chips (including AMDs offerings), but I expect releases
to be stable.  That is, after all, a big part of what I pay RedHat for.  If
didn't care about stability, I'd download and compile the latest and
greatest for myself.
I find the instability of the gcc-2.96 C++ frontend to be disturbing.
I think a reasonable fix would be to provide a set of back-patches to move
gcc back to 2.95.2, and patches to the distributed programs that use C++ so
that they are binary compatible with gcc 2.95.2.
Comment 1 Omnifarious 2000-10-10 02:29:19 UTC 
Duplicated the GNATS entries I made into the Bugzilla system as per the e-mail
send out on gcc-announce.
Comment 2 Jakub Jelinek 2000-10-20 16:07:18 UTC 
I'll work on fixing #18764 and #18765, so I'm closing this one.