From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22407 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2004 23:06:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22382 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2004 23:06:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tisch.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.157) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2004 23:06:37 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1Acuqo-0001g6-00; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:06:34 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 6D46E4B35A; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 18:06:41 -0500 (EST) To: kettenis@chello.nl, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Deal with GCC bug on 64-bit SPARC Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20040103230641.6D46E4B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:06:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 > I've seen this with GCC 3.3.2, GCC 3.3.3-ish and GCC 3.4. But I bet > older versions have this problem too. That's what I'd like to see in the source code. So that four years from now, when we're worrying about gcc 4.1, we know that it's an old comment and not a current comment. Michael C