Bug 64809 - C++ exception handler segfaults
C++ exception handler segfaults
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: libstdc++ (Show other bugs)
7.2
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jakub Jelinek
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2002-05-12 22:54 EDT by Matthew Saltzman
Modified: 2008-05-01 11:38 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2002-12-15 15:16:31 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Example code illustrating bug (113.92 KB, application/x-gzip)
2002-05-12 22:57 EDT, Matthew Saltzman
no flags Details

  None (edit)
Description Matthew Saltzman 2002-05-12 22:54:56 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408

Description of problem:
Throwing user-defined exception causes segfault.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.96-98


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Unpack attached example and cd into directory.
2. make
3. make unitTest
4. ./Linux-g/unitTest
	

Actual Results:  Prints:

Testing OsiPackedMatrix
Segmentation fault

DDD reports:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x400bb459 in __cp_pop_exception (p=0x400bb38c) from
/usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3



Expected Results:  Shoud print:

Testing OsiPackedMatrix
Error Thrown: 1



Additional info:

By "always reproducible, I mean with the attached code, not with any code.

The attached example contains a fairly large amount of code.  The execution path
is actually quite short, however this bug seems to be highly location-dependent.
 Deleting any of the other object files that are included causes the bug to not
be exercised.

The problem occurs with gcc-c++-2.96-98. The Valhalla compiler gcc-c++-2.96-110
does not exhibit the problem on this code, however I did not see any indication
that a problem like this was fixed.  gcc-2.95.3 also does not exhibit the
problem.  It is possible that other differences in these compilers move things
around so that the bug is simply not exercised.
Comment 1 Matthew Saltzman 2002-05-12 22:57:23 EDT
Created attachment 57024 [details]
Example code illustrating bug
Comment 2 Alan Cox 2002-12-15 15:16:31 EST
Verified ok with 3.2 on 8.0

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.