This is the mail archive of the 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 12:02:57PM -1000, Jimen Ching wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 11:05:16PM -1000, Jimen Ching wrote:
> >> The code below seems to be incorrectly compiled by gcc3.1 cvs that I
> >> bootstraped on Debian2.2 (Linux kernel 2.2.17).
> >Can you please file a GNATS PR about this?
> Ok, it is PR/6613.  I used my original sample source code, since I have no
> idea what your test case does.  Hope that is ok.  I wanted to add a link
> to this thread, but I didn't know how to do that.
> >The problem is (again) RTX_UNCHANGING_P, looking forward to its final
> >death in 3.2
> Does this mean that the 3.1 release will not have a fix?

Yes, very likely. It might be fixed for 3.1.1 though.

> Debian/GNU-Linux 2.2 still uses 2.95.2, and it works with that version.
> So I would assume this is a regression.  Though removing the copy
> constructor or using an integer member data is a work-around, neither are
> acceptable in the application I am developing.  I can remove the -O2, but
> the application is already slow.

For now, you can surely try either -O2 -fno-schedule-insns2 or remove some
of the const keywords.


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