On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
!>> FreeBSD(root)/tmp %cc -O foo.c -o foo.o -c
!>> cc: Internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11
!>>
!>>
!>>
!>> static void getsig11(parfree,dbl,lambda)
!>> long parfree;
!>> double *dbl;
!>> double *lambda;
!>> {
!>> long i, j;
!>> j = -1;
!>> for(i = 0; i < parfree; i++) {
!>> j += i+1;
!>> dbl[j] *= (1.0 + *lambda);
!>> }
!>> return;
!>> }
!>>
!>>
!>> Yes, the algorithm looks funny, but is correct. The program will
!>> compile correctly if the 'j += i+1;' is changed to 'j = i+1;' or if
!>> the variable 'lambda' is changed from a pointer to an actual value.
!>>
!>> Anyone want to take a stab at this? I'm not a big compiler
!>> person myself... (Dave, you there?).
!>
!> Yes - I'm here :-)
!>
!> Typically - signal 11 problems from GNU's front-end are hardware
!> memory issues....
!>
!> I will add that a quick test on a 3.3 system compiles this just
!> fine (Systems/C compiles it as well.)
!>
!> I would suspect hardware problems first.
!>
!> As I have learned from painful experience, *always* use ECC or at least
!> parity memory...
!>
!> - Dave R. -
This seems to only be an issue if you're compiling with optimization.
I *think* it's because the compiler tries to make `j' a register. If you
explicitly declare `j' a volatile, you should not get this.
Is this correct?
Bosko.
...... . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Bosko Milekic -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] . .
. . . . . . . . . ...... .
. WWW: http://pages.infinit.net/bmilekic/ .
................................................
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
