> > Does anyone have time to dig into bug #123015 a little? I've tried the
> > obvious fix (make sure the built-in CRASHES_ON_STARTUP workaround is
> > defined :)), but Mark Brown says that doesn't help. The only unstable
>
> Another occurrence of reusing a va_list variable. Although in this
> case, it looks like it was just an oversight. In addition to fixing
That's what it looked like from the gdb trace. I'll keep your patch
solution around - even where __va_copy is defined for other archs it
should not hurt to use it and work on a copy of va_list, right?
Michael
