On Apr 11, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:57:09PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> My head hurts about the GGC implications of opaque pointers in such a >>> hash table, and retaining pointers in the hash table that have already >>> been otherwise freed.
>> These are solved problems. > Only in the mathematical sense. We still have such incorrect uses in > our tree, as the bootstrap problem I reported shows. I take that back. The hash tables seem to be fine. I suspect it's the sorting on pointers in the goto_queue that triggers the problem. In fact, I'm pretty sure comparing pointers that are not guaranteed to be in the same array invokes undefined behavior, and I do remember having run into errors because of such abuse in bfd many moons ago. Ugh... -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
