Re: Results for egcs-2.92.22 19981122 (gcc2 ss-980609 experimental) testsuite on i586-pc-linux-gnu

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

First -- sorry I was a little cranky when I sent my previous message.  The
points are still valid, but I should have found a better way to present them.
My apologies.

  In message <13921.58665.847030.115090@loki.wkstn.nix>you write:
  > Jeffrey A Law writes:
  > >   > -O9 ICEs in stage1 with
  > > Err, I see man more options than just -O9.  If you want us to look into t
  > hese
  > > problems in the future, you'll have to supply accurate information.
  > 
  > Er, yes. I know. What I meant was `the build which differs from all my
  > other builds solely by supplying an -O9 flag rather than, for
  > instance, an -O2'. I rearranged the mail during writing and somehow
  > the full options list ended up below this bit when it started out
  > above :( sorry.
OK.  That helps.

  > But I did! Look below.
Right.  Though it's somewhat buried in the sense that I asked a question and
got an answer which did not match data I found later in the message.


email can be a wonderful means of communication, but it can also be a terrible
means of communication when the parties involved are not on the same page.
This is certainly one of the latter cases.

  > My brain must have been *melted* when I wrote stage1. It's stage2, of
  > course. (*Using* the stage1 compiler, which was what I was
  > thinking. My fingers ran away and typed the wrong thing :( pardon me.)
Right.  Understood.

  > The BOOT_CFLAGS were
  > 
  >  -W -Wall -O[19] -funroll-all-loops -g -march=pentium -mcpu=pentium -fomit-
  > frame-pointer
OK.  I'll give that batch a spin as soon as I can.

jeff