This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug optimization/9711] glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
- From: "ronald dot wahl at informatik dot tu-chemnitz dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 20 Jun 2003 18:45:20 -0000
- Subject: [Bug optimization/9711] glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
- References: <20030214220600.9711.rwahl@gmx.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9711
------- Additional Comments From ronald dot wahl at informatik dot tu-chemnitz dot de 2003-06-20 18:45 -------
Subject: Re: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686,
mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
On 20 Jun 2003 02:16:11 -0000, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9711
> bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
> Resolution| |INVALID
> ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2003-06-20 02:16 -------
> No feedback in a long time. Rather obscure problem anyway. Ronald, if
> this should still be a problem, we can reopen the bug, but we need
> more information to reproduce this. In general, I don't think you
> are supposed to mess with the specs files, but rather to pass any and
> all options that are not default on the command line.
As I wrote earlier I got it working with the specs file but there was a
dependency where to specify these options. If they were on a wrong place
the described bug occured. It's not really a problem since there is a
solution. At the moment I have absolutely no time to investigate this
problem further. It's ok to close this bug I think. If I find some time
to work on this problem I'll ask for reopening this bug.
- ron