------- Comment #20 from drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz 2006-01-16
03:25 -------
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > Yes, it is unnecessary, but not wrong, since if you take a closer look, it
> > is
> > just
>
> Actually it is wrong as it is in read only memory.
>
> (insn:TI 412 535 40 ../../gcc/opts.c:1301 (set (mem/u/c/i:SI (symbol_ref:SI
> ("cl_options_count") [flags 0x40] <var_decl 0xb7bd8160 cl_options_count>) [3
> cl_options_count+0 S4 A32])
> (reg:SI 3 bx [orig:143 cl_options_count ] [143])) 34 {*movsi_1} (nil)
> (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/u/c/i:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("cl_options_count")
> [flags 0x40] <var_decl 0xb7bd8160 cl_options_count>) [3 cl_options_count+0 S4
> A32])
> (nil)))
I assume this means "read-only" just as a hint for the compiler, right? Not
that it would really actually reside in a "read-only" memory. So the writing
should not cause the segfault. It is the memset that causes the segfault, no?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25636
