PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11366
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Targe
Right now, if you upgrade "gcc-3.3" from 3.3 to 3.3.1, you can end up with a
broken g++ - it will still search for /3.3/crtbeginS.o instead of
3.3.1/crtbeginS.o. I have the feeling that g++-3.3 should depend on
precisely the same version of gcc-3.3...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software
Preben Randhol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/07/2003 (11:23) :
>> Preben Randhol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > What do you mean? That it is a bad idea at the moment as nothing is
>> > stable or that it is a bad idea whenever? I don't agree with
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 01:05:52PM +0200, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
> Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is not the problem. gcc assumes the asm will return the same
> > value unless it is explicitely marked "volatile" (or has no oputputs),
> > and will happily merge them.
>
> I se
Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not the problem. gcc assumes the asm will return the same
> value unless it is explicitely marked "volatile" (or has no oputputs),
> and will happily merge them.
I see. Then this would be a glibc bug, for using __asm__ __volatile__
in __bswap16.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin v. =?iso-8859-15?q?L=F6wis?=) writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As you can see, the branch due to the family is unnecessary. This bug
> > exists in gcc272, gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.2
>
> It is unlikely that this bug will ever get fixed, as gcc won't be
> able to de
Your message dated Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:08:37 +1000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#202017: gcc-3.3: Unnecessary branching with INET/INET6
port setting
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/07/2003 (11:23) :
> Preben Randhol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What do you mean? That it is a bad idea at the moment as nothing is
> > stable or that it is a bad idea whenever? I don't agree with the
> > latter.
>
> What do you propose? Upstre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you can see, the branch due to the family is unnecessary. This bug
> exists in gcc272, gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.2
It is unlikely that this bug will ever get fixed, as gcc won't be able
to determine that the two __asm__ blocks really have the same effect.
So if you wan
BjÂÃrn Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello!
>
> I have problems with GCC. I thought that my problems were caused
> by libc, so I upgraded to the latest version(2.3.x), but it made
> no difference, GCC still can't find the required header files when
> I try to compile something. It can't
10 matches
Mail list logo