gcc 3.2.1 schedule?

[Janis Johnson]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 11:38:41PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> >Now I'm confused.  Doesn't stage 1 (where, in your case, 2.95.3 is being
> >built for the first time by 3.2) run without optimization at all?  If so,
> >how can -fno-strict-aliasing have an effect?
> 
> Hmm, good question.  The case I had been debugging was a bit different
> in that it was a non-bootstrapped build of a gcc 2.x cross-compiler
> by a 3.x compiler.  In that case the build did use optimization (-O2 IIRC).
> 
> Are you sure the stage 1 builds run without optimization? (I'm currently
> on vacation and don't have the gcc sources installed here, so I can't
> readily check ...)

Paul asked if I had used STAGE1_CFLAGS when I built and saw the same
failure, and I'm fairly sure I had not.  I'm bootstrapping today's 3.2
branch right now on i686-pc-linux-gnu and have a 3.2 compiler available
for comparison.  I can try whatever bootstraps of 2.95.3 that would
provide useful information.

Janis