This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 8146
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>,Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>,Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip dot com dot au>,Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:40:37 -0800
- Subject: Re: PR 8146
- References: <20021106103948.A18282@lucon.org> <200211061849.gA6Inh809088@piper.synopsys.com>
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:49:42AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > > > PR opt/7591 (which has nothing to do with optimization btw) is a
> > > > regression from gcc 3.0.x, so should really be marked as high-priority
> > > > and taken care of on the branch. It's a i686 specific problem (doesn't
> > > > occur on i586).
>
> I wrote:
> > > Is this the same bug as c/5351? I haven't checked, but they seem very
> > > similar. c/5351 is also marked high priority.
>
> HJ wrote:
>
> > I got
> >
> > # /usr/gcc-3.2/bin/gcc -march=i686 s.c
> > # ./a.out
> > ifName: this is a test string
> > # /usr/gcc-3.2/bin/gcc s.c
> > # ./a.out
> > ifName: this is a test string
>
> OK, this seems promising (and suggests that 5351 and 7591 are dups).
>
> You referred to two patches, but we need to get them approved one at a
> time. Can you point me to the one patch that you believe fixes this
> problem?
>
I believe
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-08/msg01170.html
fixes 5351 and 7591.
H.J.