On 29 August 2017 at 11:38, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:31:39PM +0200, Marco Varlese wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it
>> is/was all good when using gcc-6.
>>
>> The SEGFAULT happens due to the line below:
>> d_point = *p;
>
On 2017.08.29 at 12:35 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2017.08.29 at 12:31 +0200, Marco Varlese wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it
> > is/was all good when using gcc-6.
> >
> > The SEGFAULT happens due to the line below:
> > d_point =
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:31:39PM +0200, Marco Varlese wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it
> is/was all good when using gcc-6.
>
> The SEGFAULT happens due to the line below:
> d_point = *p;
>
> And a fix for it (with gcc-7) has been:
> memcpy(&d_
On 2017.08.29 at 12:31 +0200, Marco Varlese wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it
> is/was all good when using gcc-6.
>
> The SEGFAULT happens due to the line below:
> d_point = *p;
>
> And a fix for it (with gcc-7) has been:
> memcpy(&d_point,
>
Hi,
I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it
is/was all good when using gcc-6.
The SEGFAULT happens due to the line below:
d_point = *p;
And a fix for it (with gcc-7) has been:
memcpy(&d_point,
p,
sizeof(d_point));
Does this make any sense to anybody?