I am having troubles with this patch as it will not apply against a clean
uncompress of gcc-3.4.1.tar.bz2 from gcc.gnu.org <http://gcc.gnu.org> I have
compared and the timestamp the patch is looking for is 6 hours ahead of the
one from the archive


####
patch -p1 --dry-run < ~/gcc-3.4.1.patch
patching file gcc/fold-const.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 3535.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file gcc/fold-const.c.rej
####

ls -l gcc/fold-const.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 darkshadow users 292039 2004-05-31 17:15 gcc/fold-const.c

####
I don't want to use a different version of gcc as I have stuff that I
recompile often that needs to be compiled with the same version of gcc as
other stuff which I don't want to start recompiling and multiple gcc
versions just seems messy to me as I have had it before and had confusion


On 10/24/05, Jens-Heiner Rechtien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> you use gcc-3.4.1, right? Apply the attached patch to your gcc, rebuild
> gcc and recompile everything. Or just use gcc-3.4.x with x > 1.
>
> Heiner
>
>
> Jens-Heiner Rechtien
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/fold-const.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.322.2.11
> retrieving revision 1.322.2.12
> diff -u -r1.322.2.11 -r1.322.2.12
> --- gcc/gcc/fold-const.c 2004/05/31 23:15:12 1.322.2.11
> +++ gcc/gcc/fold-const.c 2004/07/10 18:23:53 1.322.2.12
> @@ -3535,7 +3535,13 @@
> HOST_WIDE_INT hi;
> int prec;
>
> - prec = TYPE_PRECISION (etype);
> + /* For enums the comparison will be done in the underlying type,
> + so using enum's precision is wrong here.
> + Consider e.g. enum { A, B, C, D, E }, low == B and high == D. */
> + if (TREE_CODE (etype) == ENUMERAL_TYPE)
> + prec = GET_MODE_BITSIZE (TYPE_MODE (etype));
> + else
> + prec = TYPE_PRECISION (etype);
> if (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
> {
> hi = 0;
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Reply via email to