This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Re: What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?
- To: tprinceusa at mindspring dot com
- Subject: Re: Re: What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:15:57 -0800
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <Springmail.105.982281121.0.18922500@www.springmail.com>
Your message came through on one long line. Please fix your mail client.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:52:01PM -0500, tprinceusa@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> I'm in the middle of a testsuite run of gcc-2.97 on cygwin; I'll go
> later and see if the old -march=pentiumpro -ffast-math bugs are
> still there, as they were last week. I've never had an answer as to
> whether that combination of options is supported; it does work for
> boot-strapping now, even though that has been stated as being
> supported only for default options, but obviously can't be depended
> upon in general. The last time I tried to use the gnats reporting
> system, I got kicked out for lack of credentials, so I've never
> re-submitted these bugs myself since sending a test case to
> gcc-bugs. Still, if 2.97 can't handle relatively simple options
> such as those and -Os, I'll continue to prefer the 2.95 series. Do
> bugs submitted on gcc-bugs expire after a few months if no one
> succeeds in getting the case into the test suite, and they don't
> crop up in multiple applications? I do remember a statement just a
> few days ago that bugs aren't important if they only show up in a
> few people's applications.
Bugs do not expire from GNATS. If you just send them to gcc-bugs they
may get forgotten about. You should not need any credentials to use
the gccbug script, included with every snapshot, to file a report in
GNATS.
None of what you said gives me any idea of what the bug actually is,
beyond some sort of problem with -march=pentiumpro -ffast-math and
Cygwin. I see several reports in the gcc-bugs archive which seem to
be related to that combination of options, but I do not know which is
yours, or whether they've been fixed. I'm going to assume that gcc
2.9[67] either crashes or generates incorrect code for some input or
other, with those options, and gcc 2.95.x doesn't. If that is true,
then the bug is important never mind how rare it is.
But you have to tell us what the bug is, before we can fix it.
zw