This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ia64 linux doesn't bootstrap
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:41:06 -0700
- Subject: Re: ia64 linux doesn't bootstrap
--On Friday, October 18, 2002 10:02:32 PM -0400 David Edelsohn
<dje@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark> But, nobody should every be trying to read or write those bits. Why
Mark> is that happenning?
Mark> Anyhow, what is the triplet for the target? If I run bitfield7.C on
Mark> that target's cc1plus I take it I will see the failure?
The target triplet seems to be any PowerPC (:-) target:
powerpc-eabisim, powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu, powerpc-ibm-aix4.3.3.0 .
The failure, as Janis mentioned, is g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7_y.C
which as an ABI compatibility test expands on the original
g++.dg/abi/bitfield7.C test. bitfield7.C *does not* access the field and
does not ICE. Only Janis's new test, bitfield7_y.C, operates on the
bitfield eliciting the ICE. This may be a failure which only visibly ICEs
on big-endian targets due to the logic in extract_bit_field.
I don't understand the subject line of this thread. Does this actually
affect a bootstrap on ia64 GNU/Linux?
If the only way to get this problem is with a bitfield longer than its
type, it's not a terribly important bug. That code didn't used to be
accepted by GCC 2.95.x; it gave a sorry. Now we crash on some targets.
This is a bug well worth fixing, but I'm trying to figure out if I need
to look at it *right now*.
In any case, please get it into GNATS.
Then, mark it with an appropriate priority.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com