This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc 3.2.1 schedule?
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- To: prj at po dot cwru dot edu (Paul Jarc)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:07:23 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 schedule?
>
> >> Is there some reason why 8146 hasn't been made high-priority? It's a
> >> regression, right?
> >
Ulrich Weigand <weigand@immd1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
> > [The problem is bootstrapping gcc 2.95.3 with gcc 3.2 gives
> > comparison failures.]
> >
> > Are you sure this signifies a bug in gcc 3.2, as opposed to
> > a bug in gcc 2.95.3 that simply gets exposed by being compiled
> > with 3.2?
>
> No. I was just going by the statement (which I can't find ATM) that a
> bootstrap comparison failure usually indicates a bug in the compiler
> you start with.
> > Does the bootstrap work when stage 1 is built with
> > -fno-strict-aliasing?
Paul Jarc wrote:
> Yes: I used an existing 3.2 build and added -fno-strict-aliasing to
> STAGE1_CFLAGS for a 2.95.3 build, and there were no errors this time.
> Does this mean it's definitely not a 3.2 bug?
Now I'm confused. Doesn't stage 1 (where, in your case, 2.95.3 is being
built for the first time by 3.2) run without optimization at all? If so,
how can -fno-strict-aliasing have an effect?