Re: libg++-2.8.1.3-20000914.diff.gz (was: Re: Segmentation fault building libg++ without named returns)

["Tim Prince" <tprince at computer dot org>]

If you're talking about glibc (I missed the beginning of the thread)
doesn't -Os also prevent math inlines?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manfred Hollstein" <manfredh@redhat.com>
To: "John David Anglin" <dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
Cc: <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: libg++-2.8.1.3-20000914.diff.gz (was: Re: Segmentation fault
building libg++ without named returns)


> On Thursday, 21 September 2000, 12:47:30 -0400, dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca
wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > Your analysis is correct and is similar to my observations. Since I
> > > don't have enough time to fix this properly, I came up with the hack
> > > to use -O0 on ia32-linux. I've attached the patch which supersedes the
> > > former version -20000907; "make bootstrap check" ran successfully
using
> > > this patch.
> >
> > I have found that the problem is in some way related to math inlines.
If
> > the build is done with __NO_MATH_INLINES defined, then Fix.o contains
all
> > the required weak defines.  There are no testsuite failures with your
> > version -20000907 if I add -D__NO_MATH_INLINES to CXXFLAGS in the
Makefile's.
> >
> > The math inlines are output at optimisations above O0.  If the
preprocessing
> > is done at -O0 and the compilation at -O3, the weak defines are there.
The
> > other way around doesn't work.
>
> I observed similar problems while building libgcj; adding
> -D__NO_MATH_INLINES cured them, too. I've been out during
> the last two weeks, so I don't know the current status.
> I'll check once I have time and keep you posted.
>
> Cheers.
>
> l8er
> manfred