This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: gcc3.1 regression?


On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 02:03:02PM +0000, Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:
> I also have not been able to replicate the bug in Jakub's code with
> either the 4/19 or the 5/6 snapshots (specs below). 
> 
> I checked this because when first looking at the code, I thought it
> shouldn't compile ( in the declaration of T it looks as though A,B
> should be copied). So I tried it out on different compilers. Those
> that didn't choke for other reasons seemed to accept the code.

The thing is not acceptance of the code, but miscompilation of
static initialization/destruction.

> I notice that my build is a 686 build whereas  the build in question
> is a 586 build, could that be the reason ( sorry if it's obvious, I
> don't know the internals of gcc ).

But were you using -O2 and running the resulting binary?
I can reproduce it with all of -O2 -march={3,5,6}86.

	Jakub


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