Re: 3.0.1 regressions

[David Ronis <ronis at ronispc dot chem dot mcgill dot ca>]

Mark Mitchell writes:
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > --On Monday, August 13, 2001 12:53:30 PM -0400 David Ronis 
 > <ronis@ronispc.chem.mcgill.ca> wrote:
 > 
 > >
 > >
 > > Hi Mark,
 > >
 > > Have the problems with fomit-frame-pointer, optimization and ix86's
 > > been fixed?  It doesn't seem so from gnats:
 > 
 > These are not regressions from GCC 3.0, if I understand correctly.  So,
 > while they are very important, and should definitely be fixed, they need
 > not hold up GCC 3.0.1.

The are not regressions from 3.0, in that 3.0 had these broken
already.  On the other hand, I think I'm missing something.  3.0.1
will only fix what? further regressions in the 3.0.1 snapshots?
Wasn't it supposed to address the 2.95.3->3.0 regressions?  (that's
what you get for not following that part of the mailing list).

 > Can you track down the patches that broke this functionality between
 > GCC 2.95.2 and GCC 3.0?  If you can, that would let us know who to ask
 > to fix the problems.  Otherwise, we need a volunteer.

In any event, I'm not able to track down the breakpoint.  There is a
fairly detailed analysis in some of the gnats reports I mentioned, and
there was someone else who posted something about the groff bug:

	   George Garvey <tmwg-gcc at inxservices dot com>

Finally, I run bootstrap builds/testsuites with this level of
optimization on an i686 every couple of days.  While there are more
failures than with the default flags, nothing striking shows up.

David