Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 8:09 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've attached a revised summary of the critical bugs open against
4.0. The good news is that there are fewer than last week.
Earlier today, Andrew Haley posted a small C++ snippet showing
Jason Merrill wrote:
Glad to hear from you; I was afraid something worse than simply too much
work had befallen you.
There's a patch in the comments for 19317 that just disables the offending
optimization.
Great; would you please apply that? It seems like our best approach at
present.
I'll
Andrew == Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Yes it might be a silent miscompiling but there is an easy
Andrew work around, use a temporary variable, ...
I'm not sure how there can ever be an easy workaround to silent
miscompiles -- by definition you may not know there is a
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Earlier today, Andrew Haley posted a small C++ snippet showing an ABI
change
affecting gcj on PPC32:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg00139.html
I hope he'll open a PR soon, but you probably want to consider this
for 4.0.
Note it also
Mark,
I nominate PR libgcj/20155 for a less critical bug since it is
actually a bootstrap regression on numerous platforms albeit easily
worked around with a configure --disable-libgcj. The root cause is the
invocation of a ~90,000 character command line (which would be beyond my
expectation
Kelley Cook wrote:
Mark,
I nominate PR libgcj/20155 for a less critical bug since it is
actually a bootstrap regression on numerous platforms albeit easily
worked around with a configure --disable-libgcj.
Yes, it would be good to get that fixed.
Kelly, is your patch, attached to the PR, still a
I've attached a revised summary of the critical bugs open against 4.0.
The good news is that there are fewer than last week. There are several
bugs for which it appears that all that remains to be done is apply a
mainline patch to the 4.0 branch. These are listed at the bottom of the
On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
20734 rejects valid pointer to member
Not yet assigned.
How is this less Critical?
This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is not
rejected when not in templates.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
20734 rejects valid pointer to member
Not yet assigned.
How is this less Critical?
This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is not
rejected when not in templates.
Clearly this is a judgement call.
On Apr 4, 2005, at 11:48 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
20734 rejects valid pointer to member
Not yet assigned.
How is this less Critical?
This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is
not
rejected when not in
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Yes it might be a silent miscompiling but there is an easy work around,
use a
temporary variable
In a large sourcebase, even figuring out what's been miscompiled is very
hard. It's much easier to deal with a compiler that ICEs than one that
silently miscompiles code.
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:26:23 -0700, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are three outstanding bugs (19317, 19312, 18604) assigned to Jason
Merrill, but I didn't hear back from him last week. Jason, I'm going to
assume that you're unable to work on these. As Nathan is on vacation, I
12 matches
Mail list logo
