Re: c/7872: ICE on legal code, regression from 3.0 and 2.9*

[Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu>]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 03:45:46PM -0000, bangerth@dealii.org wrote:
> > Synopsis: ICE on legal code, regression from 3.0 and 2.9*
> > 
> > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
> > State-Changed-By: bangerth
> > State-Changed-When: Wed Nov 27 07:45:44 2002
> > State-Changed-Why:
> >         Richard, same here: I don't have an m68k so cannot check your problem.
> you can, the bugreport should have enough information to configure the 
> cross-compiler and all the necessary input to test the problem on any
> architecture.

I've never done it, and would not know whether the results I get are right 
or wrong. So I prefer to leave things like that to people who are more 
familiar with that than me, and rather concentrate on further searching 
the database for reports.


> >         What happened to the patch you appended? I does not seem
> >         to have been applied...
> 
> Unfortunately untill now I have seen absolutely no response to this 
> bugreport, thanks for looking at it.
> 
> Quite possible my solution is not the correct or best one, I noticed
> the problem would also go away if m68k had CLASS_CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE 
> defined. However the gcc docs describe this as something that should 
> affect floating point only so I am not sure about this.

Try to find the maintainers of the code and ask them for their opinion, 
possibly in private mail. Maybe that helps, I see too many bugs slipping 
through the cracks. Otherwise you may also send the patch to the list, and 
put a "Unreviewed patch" in the subject to indicate that this is a 
long-pending matter.

Regards
  Wolfgang

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth              email:           bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth