https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115706
--- Comment #8 from Dev Dude <devdude2 at hotmail dot com> --- Hmmm it seems adding an attachment lost my comment. I'll try to remember most of it. First, thanks Nathaniel for your polite comments. Much appreciated. I'm not sure why Sam is mentioning multiple bugs because that was already addressed in creating 115705, which existed prior to his comment about multiple bugs, and he's replied to it in further do nothing fashion. So Bug 115705 is self evident and in it's own report already. Regarding this bug, which is the stack trace, if Sam spent as much time running the small script as complaining that it was pasted rather than attached, he could have confirmed the bug instead of doing nothing here too. And the time Sam spent on 115705 telling me he's doing nothing on it and it's easy, he could have fixed it. I don't need either bug fixed as I only use gcc as a test compiler, I am simply trying to help GCC for that same reason. But I'm not paid for this either, and it takes time to discover gcc's and libstdc++'s problems and write them up in any form, code, let alone write scripts to assist people to see the problems, which I did that Sam ignored only to complain about it. I don't appreciate attitude for simply having the audacity to try to help. It isn't going to be perfect reports every time. If life was perfect, I wouldn't be assisting to fix someone else's screw up anyway. More to the point, I'm not going to fix it, however easy it is, because I don't appreciate this attitude and lest I get further complaints for trying to help. Sam and a few others might want to consider that next time, but these types don't it seems. Somebody should really have a team get together and knock this attitude on the head. Sure I try to get clarity on bug reports myself, but I don't spew out attitude to would be helpers. I wish to clearly note that I am not referring to you Nathaniel, you're extremely polite and helpful, but if somebody reading this can sort this attitude out, it'd be great, because I'm doing nothing more with any of this because of this. So to summarize, there IS only one bug in this report from my perspective, the stack dump to which the attached script relates. Running it, should yield an assert failure of sorts, so running the script should yield a line number in your own builds - it does from trunk, and that should allow for a debug break point to be used to see the state of the compiler, which means a lot more to you lot than me, but this script does reveal some bugs I think, because it's a dump. If it doesn't for you, let me know the circumstance. To be clear, it's failing on on gcc's own headers not my own code. Regardin the line here: [build] 88 | mypath = pathbuf; that is from my project, but I don't consider that a bug report, it's just output from using the headers built by the attached script, but as that crashed on headers execution and random on first attempt (with not parameters), it can't be trusted, even though it compiles on second attempt with random and execution as parameters to the script. So it's just some output that that'll likely go away when this bug is fixed and or 115705 is fixed, I just included the line as it might have revealed something for this or 115705. I hope this is helpful Nathaniel and thanks for your supportive commentary. If you wish to do nothing until your other 92277 bug is solved, that's of course fine by me. I will try to build my code again if I see that bug fixed or if you tell me to. Just FYI, I'm unlikely to publicly get involved any more, or certainly with this site and that's fault of yours Nathaniel.
