Thread overview
ICE
Dec 23, 2002
Matthew Wilson
Dec 23, 2002
Matthew Wilson
Dec 23, 2002
Matthew Wilson
December 23, 2002
Walter

Am getting some builds that cause

  Internal error: cgobj 386
  --- errorlevel 1

on the 8.32b, and not on 8.31. Also have some that cause the ICE on both 8.31/8.32b, but not on earlier, say 8.28.

Will try and isolate (although the workload is making this look pretty
unlikely)

Presume you can't act until I narrow it, yes?



December 23, 2002
More research has shown that this is a combinatorial bug.

The certain piece of code that, when commented out, stops the ICE only causes it in one project (where it is used in combination with a number of other headers/templates), and does not cause the same problem in its own (smaller) test program.

I am, therefore, out of ideas, beyond sending you the code for both projects (2 .cpp, 11 .h). Shall I?

Matthew


"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:au83nm$on5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter
>
> Am getting some builds that cause
>
>   Internal error: cgobj 386
>   --- errorlevel 1
>
> on the 8.32b, and not on 8.31. Also have some that cause the ICE on both 8.31/8.32b, but not on earlier, say 8.28.
>
> Will try and isolate (although the workload is making this look pretty
> unlikely)
>
> Presume you can't act until I narrow it, yes?
>
>
>


December 23, 2002
I've done a workaround, and made it go away. I've attached the header in case you're interested:  look for _STLSOFT_COMPILER_IS_DMC.

I would think it would be something you would like to track down, since it is a vulnerability that has crept in sometime between 8.28 and 8.31, but I guess it can go down on the not-urgent list.

Matthew


"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:au83nm$on5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter
>
> Am getting some builds that cause
>
>   Internal error: cgobj 386
>   --- errorlevel 1
>
> on the 8.32b, and not on 8.31. Also have some that cause the ICE on both 8.31/8.32b, but not on earlier, say 8.28.
>
> Will try and isolate (although the workload is making this look pretty
> unlikely)
>
> Presume you can't act until I narrow it, yes?
>
>
>