[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev LYMainLoop.c -- gcc signal 11, egcs-1.1.2

From: brian j pardy
Subject: Re: lynx-dev LYMainLoop.c -- gcc signal 11, egcs-1.1.2
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 22:03:15 -0400

On Setting Orange, the 71st of Bureaucracy, 3165, Klaus Weide wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, brian j pardy wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 17, 1999, T.E.Dickey wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Any suggestions on which functions to start with?  Probably the main 
> > > > loop.  Also, I just noticed in what I have up there -- it says "cpp" 
> > > 
> > > yes - or the functions "handle_LYK_xxx" that I split-out of the main
> > > loop.  That would be possibly better (since chopping out the main
> > > loop would leave a lot of orphaned private functions, while chopping
> > > out the functions themselves would just leave a lot of implicit
> > > declarations).
> > 
> > I've narrowed it down to within handle_LYK_digit().  
> Hmm.  Is the GCC_UNUSED in
>      BOOLEAN *,  try_internal GCC_UNUSED)
> maybe confusing the compiler?  The variable is unused in the case
> where you have no problem, but is used in the case where you do
> do have a problem.
> I don't know whether the various gccs take that only as a directive
> to suppress some warnings or as more serious information.

Eliminating the GCC_UNUSED seems to make no difference (BTW Leonid, I
tried cold rebooting with a 15min downtime in between, it didn't
change anything).  I'm still playing with it, but I'm about to write
it off as egcs bogosity and leave it at that.

> > It looks like the
> > code in the #ifndef DONT_TRACK_INTERNAL_LINKS (nasty double negatives
> > again) is causing it.
> Yes, I have done it too...  It should probably be changed to a
> positive form ('TRACK_INTERNAL_LINKS') if you (and others) find
> that would help.

A quick check of src/ (I'm assuming it's nowhere in WWW/) shows 25
uses in the negative form (#ifndef), and only one #ifdef.  Might be a
good idea.

> It seems it is clear that this is an error in the compiler, not
> in the code itself (it may only 'trigger' that error) - right?

That's what I would say.  It could be anything, especially since Tom
seems to be having no problems with the same version.  I don't think
it's Lynx.

Memory fault -- brain fried

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]