This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Possible optimization bug on i386

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
To: Will Newton <wnewton at cmedltd dot com>
Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 11:11:50 +0200
Subject: Re: Possible optimization bug on i386
References: <200305081804.05379.wnewton@cmedltd.com> <200305082059.27636.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <200305090937.11437.wnewton@cmedltd.com>

By this can I assume that my report was clear and unambiguous enough for it to be useful to the development team?

Yes, you seem to have already narrowed down the problem to a small chunk of assembly code, which can take a significant amount of time. We now need a preprocessed testcase, even a not too small one provided that you can pinpoint the lines in the source code that produce the aforementioned chunk of assembly. And *specific* GCC version numbers (3.x is too vague) and configuration options as reported by 'gcc -v'. Then fill in a report with GNAT and I'll take a look at it.

I don't see the point in reporting a bug that is not clearly defined enough for it to be investigated.

I wish every bug reporter made this reasoning!

--
Eric Botcazou

References:
- Possible optimization bug on i386
  - From: Will Newton
- Re: Possible optimization bug on i386
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: Possible optimization bug on i386
  - From: Will Newton

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]