From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 719 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2004 23:34:22 -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 700 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2004 23:34:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.115.144) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2004 23:34:21 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i03NYDIc000312; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:34:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i03NYDct000470; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:34:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i03NYC2r000467; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:34:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200401032334.i03NYC2r000467@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com CC: mec.gnu@mindspring.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040103230641.6D46E4B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> (mec.gnu@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Deal with GCC bug on 64-bit SPARC References: <20040103230641.6D46E4B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 18:06:41 -0500 (EST) From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) > 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. Good point. I mentioned GCC 3.3.2 since that's the latest official release. I've verified that it shows the problem. Better not mention GCC 3.3.3 or GCC 3.4, since the bugs still might be fixed before those are released ;-). Mark