3.0.1 regressions

David Ronis ronis@ronispc.chem.mcgill.ca
Mon Aug 13 11:04:00 GMT 2001


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



More information about the Gcc-bugs mailing list