This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc3.1 regression?
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: "Thaddeus L. Olczyk" <olczyk at interaccess dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 16:12:26 +0200
- Subject: Re: gcc3.1 regression?
- References: <3cdb7ec0.430821968@smtp.interaccess.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 02:03:02PM +0000, Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:
> I also have not been able to replicate the bug in Jakub's code with
> either the 4/19 or the 5/6 snapshots (specs below).
>
> I checked this because when first looking at the code, I thought it
> shouldn't compile ( in the declaration of T it looks as though A,B
> should be copied). So I tried it out on different compilers. Those
> that didn't choke for other reasons seemed to accept the code.
The thing is not acceptance of the code, but miscompilation of
static initialization/destruction.
> I notice that my build is a 686 build whereas the build in question
> is a 586 build, could that be the reason ( sorry if it's obvious, I
> don't know the internals of gcc ).
But were you using -O2 and running the resulting binary?
I can reproduce it with all of -O2 -march={3,5,6}86.
Jakub