On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:33:26AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > tags 344046 +wontfix > thanks
> This is still a bug in GCC. > > By this standard, almost all toolchain bugs would be > > release-critical bugs. This is not reasonable; > I beg to differ. We should not be shipping GCC where -O2 does > not work for common constructs. Sorry, but there are lots of other cases in which "gcc -O2" will fail on one arch or another. As for "common constructs", this is the only package I've seen so far that suffers from this particular gcc bug. No disagreement that it is a gcc bug, and that the gcc bug should be fixed, but it's a minor regression in gcc that has a major impact on make specifically. > And it is not as if make is using obscure gcc invocation > options: -O2 has been the norm for decades. Having -O2 fail is a > regression in GCC; and making people use worse optimazations or > special case architectures to work around breakage is other packages > is also not acceptable. > This is not going to be fixed in make, and patches to add > complex arch specific code into the build system shall be rejected. Well, I'm not going to argue about it in this case, as there are a number of other issues with m68k right now that are almost certainly going to see the arch dropped as a release candidate. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
