https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66504

Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> Confirmed; message I get now with trunk is:
> 
> $ /usr/local/bin/g++ -c 35756.mm
> during GIMPLE pass: eh
> 35756.mm: In function ‘void Problem()’:
> 35756.mm:1:6: internal compiler error: in objc_eh_runtime_type, at
> objc/objc-next-runtime-abi-01.c:2791
>  void Problem()
>       ^~~~~~~
> libbacktrace could not find executable to open
> Please submit a full bug report,
> with preprocessed source if appropriate.
> See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
> 
> Attaching gdb to get a backtrace, I get:
> 
> Breakpoint 2, 0x00fb3c74 in internal_error ()
> (gdb) bt
> #0  0x00fb3c74 in internal_error ()
> warning: .o file
> "/private/var/root/gcc-git/my_oddly_named_builddir/./mpfr/src/.libs/libmpfr.
> a(mpfr-gmp.o)" more recent than executable timestamp
> #1  0x014e9561 in fancy_abort ()
> #2  0x012db91c in objc_eh_runtime_type ()
> #3  0x007b571b in add_type_for_runtime ()
> #4  0x007b57ab in gen_eh_region_catch ()
> #5  0x00c676c1 in lower_eh_constructs_1 ()
> #6  0x00c68deb in (anonymous namespace)::pass_lower_eh::execute ()
> #7  0x00af3550 in execute_one_pass ()
> #8  0x00af3eb9 in execute_pass_list_1 ()
> #9  0x00af3f0e in execute_pass_list ()
> #10 0x006bed49 in cgraph_node::analyze ()
> #11 0x006c1d3d in analyze_functions ()
> #12 0x006c2c42 in symbol_table::finalize_compilation_unit ()
> #13 0x00bee32a in compile_file ()
> #14 0x01b02420 in toplev::main ()
> #15 0x01b03a34 in main ()
> 
> I'll have to rebuild with debug info to get a better backtrace.

Actually looking at the backtrace makes me think this is a dup of bug 61759

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 61759 ***

Reply via email to