------- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 18:57 ------- Andy there you go again:
Irrelevancies and make work for others. You folks at gcc made tons of changes in gcc-4.3 regarding machine definitions and similar. I have some evidence that some blatant mistakes were silently corrected without mentioning even ICE's in gcc bootstrap. I refrained (wisely) from saying anything about compilations using 3Gigs of memory and then collapsing,. Now an insider has come to acknowledge that problem,PR31863. How about your patch to overcome the PR 31541 (bit field addressing) now untouched for almost one month. It is no wonder that a lot of packages, when I tell them about easy fixes regarding gcc-4.x.y, reply "we rather deal deal with gcc-3.x.y or even gcc-2.x( even with -fno-strength-reduce). The gcc group really working hard at overcoming problems noticed by users are the gfortran people (Yes, I had my run-in with them over the goto thing, but they have not caused me to file any PR's after that) Now to some perhaps ppoorly understood by my self technical issues: 1. binutils does a MACRO regarding udevdi3, but its is impossible to build binutils (even current CVS with gcc-4.3.0) 2. gcc-4.2.1 compiles the impacted kernel fine. To my simple, but seasoned, mind the onus when something stops working is on the party that made changes (namley gcc going from 4.2 to 4.3); not on the one that did not change in this case kernel-2.6.20.11. 3. I referred to to the experts in both organizations and I do not believe that you are the gcc expert in machine descriptions. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31990
