[Bug middle-end/18887] [4.0/4.1 Regression] libgcc2.h Improperly determines required built-in function size requirements.

["ericw at evcohs dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From ericw at evcohs dot com  2005-02-28 22:10 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0/4.1 Regression] libgcc2.h Improperly
 determines required built-in function size requirements.

schlie at comcast dot net wrote:

>------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net  2005-02-28 22:02 -------
>(In reply to comment #21)
>  
>
>>Hi,  
>> 
>>since this bug has been fixed by a patch of Roger Sayles a couple of weeks 
>>ago, I suggest to mark it as "fixed". 
>>    
>>
>
>It's true that the original failure mode, which nessesitated removing 64-bit long longs
>has been fixed, but observe that none the less; libgcc2.h still improperly determines
>built-in function types, if long-long types are not declared as being supported by the
>target. (the catch 22 is that one can't show a regression against an exiting target,
>because exiting targets would not build without 64-bit type support, therefore the
>only means to demonstraite it is to intentially remove such type support from an exsiting
>target, which should otherwise build fine, but wont')?
>
>  
>
We've already gone over this. If you want to modify the sources to not 
declare the long long type for the AVR, fine, but that is on your 
experimental sources.
See the previous discussion about this on bug #
<http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20143>
Please stop rehashing the same stuff in bug reports.

If the original failure is fixed, then close the bug report.
If there are different failures, then open up new bug reports, one per 
failure.




-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18887