Re: [sdcc-devel] Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV

[Lin R. <wo...@pa...>]

The mistery about "Caught sigal 11: SIGSEGV" is, it is related with "compile 
order".
In this sips.c example, it occurs during my whole makefile process, if I try 
to compile sips.c alone, the problem disappears.

Woody

http://palmmicro.com/woody/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Borut Razem" <bor...@gm...>
To: <sdc...@li...>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [sdcc-devel] Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV


> It seems to be a preprocessor or communication between sdcpp and sdcc
> problem. Can you please provide me the sips.c and all the required
> header files?
>
> Borut
>
>
> On 15. 03. 2012 22:22, Lin Rongrong wrote:
>> Sorry I really do not mean to spam the mailing list with Caught signal 
>> 11:
>> SIGSEGV. But I meet it again with:
>> C:\sdcc\src>..\bin\sdcc -v
>> SDCC : mcs51/gbz80/z80/z180/r2k/ds390/pic16/pic14/TININative/ds400/hc08
>> 3.1.3 #7453 (Mar 15 2012) (MINGW32)
>>
>> C:\SDCC\BIN\sdcc sips.c -mz80 -c --std-c99 --max-allocs-per-node
>> 6000 --codeseg CODE5
>> Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV
>> sdcpp.exe: fatal error: when writing output to : Invalid argument
>> ..\bin\make: *** [sips.rel] Error 1
>>
>> I read it somewhere: "Almost all signal 11 crashes (segment faults) are
>> caused by a reference to the object of a null pointer, which is address
>> 0x0000."  Any comment of this?
>>
>> Woody
>>
>> http://palmmicro.com/woody/
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lin Rongrong"<wo...@pa...>
>> To:<sdc...@li...>
>> Cc: "Sdcc-Devel"<sdc...@li...>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 11:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV
>>
>>
>>> With build #7393, caught signal 11 again:
>>> C:\SDCC\BIN\sdcc function.c -mz80 -c --std-c99 --codeseg CODE1
>>> Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV
>>> sdcpp.exe: fatal error: when writing output to : No such file or 
>>> directory
>>> ..\bin\make: *** [function.rel] Error 1
>>>
>>>
>>> Woody
>>>
>>> http://palmmicro.com/woody/
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Lin Rongrong"<wo...@pa...>
>>> To:<sdc...@li...>
>>> Cc:<su...@pa...>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:51 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV
>>>
>>>
>>>> Still with build #7371, today one of my co-worker found the same Caught
>>>> signal 11: SIGSEGV, however, he was using "--max-allocs-per-node 9521".
>>>> Really a mistery for me:
>>>> C:\SDCC\BIN\sdcc sips.c -mz80 -c --std-c99 --max-allocs-per-node
>>>> 9521 --codeseg CODE5
>>>> Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV
>>>>
>>>> Woody
>>>>
>>>> http://palmmicro.com/woody/
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Lin Rongrong"<wo...@pa...>
>>>> To:<sdc...@li...>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:24 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Build #7371 no longer generate time.c "Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV" any
>>>>> more. But I meet a new one today:
>>>>> C:\SDCC\BIN\sdcc sips.c -mz80 -c --std-c99 --max-allocs-per-node
>>>>> 9522 --codeseg CODE5
>>>>> Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV
>>>>> sdcpp.exe: fatal error: ..\bin\make: *** [sips.rel] Error 1
>>>>> when writing output to : Invalid argument
>>>>>
>>>>> Using "--max-allocs-per-node 9521" does not generate the problem.
>>>>> I am running the MINGW32 build on a 64bit Windows Vista.
>>>>>
>>>>> Woody
>>>>>
>>>>> http://palmmicro.com/woody/
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Lin Rongrong"<wo...@pa...>
>>>>> To:<sdc...@li...>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:54 PM
>>>>> Subject: Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> When testing #7368 today (SDCC :
>>>>>> mcs51/gbz80/z80/z180/r2k/ds390/pic16/pic14/TININative/ds400/hc08 
>>>>>> 3.1.3
>>>>>> #7368 (Feb 27 2012) (MINGW32)), I found one of my file time.c will 
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> following error with command line:
>>>>>> C:\SDCC\BIN\sdcc time.c -mz80 -c --std-c99 --max-allocs-per-node
>>>>>> 9522 --codeseg CODE1
>>>>>> Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV
>>>>>> ..\bin\make: *** [time.rel] Error 1
>>>>>> Then I started to get a "min" version of time.c to repeat the problem
>>>>>> for a new bug report. I separated the functions in time.c into 2 
>>>>>> parts.
>>>>>> Each part of functions compiled ok. But when they merge into a single
>>>>>> file, the problem began.
>>>>>> What is this "Caught signal 11: SIGSEGV" actually about? Any 
>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>> for me to locate and minimize the problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Woody
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://palmmicro.com/woody/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF email is sponsosred by:
> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
> _______________________________________________
> sdcc-devel mailing list
> sdc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel