This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:55:45 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)
- References: <45DA39B2.9010100@codesourcery.com.suse.lists.egcs> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702200017140.32368@digraph.polyomino.org.uk.suse.lists.egcs> <20070220003338.GA26045@synopsys.com.suse.lists.egcs> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0702200942310.12867@caipclassic.rutgers.edu.suse.lists.egcs> <p733b50e933.fsf@bingen.suse.de> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0702201755370.24182@caipclassic.rutgers.edu>
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 06:23:14PM -0500, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> No it doesn't need stating, at least not for me. :-) Sure nobody likes
> bugs/miscompilations, but all compilers have them. We evaluate how
> serious they are and whether a performance hit from a bug fix is worth it.
> My understanding is that 4.1 has this very same bug, and it hits about as
> often as it does in 4.2. See the end of this message:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-02/msg00432.html
>
> If so, then it can't be too bad IMHO. That was the context within which
> I made my statement. And if that holds, I continue to stand by it.
On the other hand, I consider this a fairly serious bug in 4.1 (and
I've seen customers encounter it at least twice off the top of my
head). It depends what your tolerance for wrong-code bugs is.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery