Hello all,
I have used patch from GCC-PATCHES list
posted by Bernd Schmidt .
Because of high importance I am forwarding this patch to
Linux-Kernel. Patch seems to solve problem.
I have added warning print for case of problem,
to find which parts of Linux kernel could be affected by this GCC
bug.
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:33:25 Olaf Dietsche wrote:
>
> A simple `gcc -march=i686' or `gcc -mpentiumpro' does fix it as
> well. So, if you configure your kernel with `CONFIG_M686=y' the problem
> should be gone.
>
That does not work for 2.2 kernels. Always compile for -m486. To use
the -march fl
Mike Castle writes:
> Btw, was this ever tested on other arch's? I don't remember seeing
> anything come across this list.
Well, I've tested it on egcs-1.1.2 and RH's gcc 2.96 on ARM, both of
which appear ok.
_
|_| - ---+---+-
| |
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:33:25PM +0100, Olaf Dietsche wrote:
> A simple `gcc -march=i686' or `gcc -mpentiumpro' does fix it as
> well. So, if you configure your kernel with `CONFIG_M686=y' the problem
> should be gone.
Btw, was this ever tested on other arch's? I don't remember seeing
anything
On 26 Nov 2000, Olaf Dietsche wrote:
> A simple `gcc -march=i686' or `gcc -mpentiumpro' does fix it as
> well. So, if you configure your kernel with `CONFIG_M686=y' the
> problem should be gone.
Except for the fact that it'll no longer boot on Pentiums
and 486es ;)
Rik
--
Hollywood goes for wor
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:26:15PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > The gcc-2.95.2-6cl from Conectiva 6.0 is buggy too.
> >
> > Yes. Probably you have seen it by now, but the difference between
> > go
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:26:15PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > The gcc-2.95.2-6cl from Conectiva 6.0 is buggy too.
>
> Yes. Probably you have seen it by now, but the difference between
> good and bad versions of gcc-2.95.2 did not lie in the app
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:26:15PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The gcc-2.95.2-6cl from Conectiva 6.0 is buggy too.
Yes. Probably you have seen it by now, but the difference between
good and bad versions of gcc-2.95.2 did not lie in the applied patches,
but was the difference between compilation
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:26:15PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
Rik,
We refuse to use it here at present. Builds from it have a lot
of problems, for some reason. Andre is looking into it more
deeply than I, but I agree with your assessment.
Jeff
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > O
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday November 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> ... RedHat's GCC snapshot "2.96" handles this case just fine.
> >
> > > Now, if you can isolate the relevant part of the diff between
> > > 2.95.2 and RH 2.96...
> >
> > Maybe I have to be more precis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > so the reason why it did not show up in the gcc you picked up from
> > ftp.gnu.org is that you have compiled it so that it defaults to -mcpu=i686
>
> Yes, you are right.
>
> So 2.95.2 fails for i386, i486, i586 and does not fail for i686.
>
RedHat 7.0's gcc 2.96
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>so the reason why it did not show up in the gcc you picked up from
>ftp.gnu.org is that you have compiled it so that it defaults to -mcpu=i686
>where the bug does not show up.
Indeed. I just ran some tests, and I can confirm that gcc 2.95.2 vanilla
exhi
> so the reason why it did not show up in the gcc you picked up from
> ftp.gnu.org is that you have compiled it so that it defaults to -mcpu=i686
Yes, you are right.
So 2.95.2 fails for i386, i486, i586 and does not fail for i686.
Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
> > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-suse-linux/2.95.2/specs
> > gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
> > % /usr/bin/gcc -Wall -O2 -o bug bug.c; ./bug
> > 0x8480
> > % /usr/gcc/aeb/bin/gcc -v
> > Reading specs from
/usr/gcc/aeb/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/specs
> > gcc versio
On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 06:20:33AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> ... RedHat's GCC snapshot "2.96" handles this case just fine.
>
> > Now, if you can isolate the relevant part of the diff between
> > 2.95.2 and RH 2.96...
>
> Maybe I have to be more precise in the statement "gcc 2.95.2 is
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 06:20:33 +0100 (MET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-suse-linux/2.95.2/specs
> gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
> % /usr/bin/gcc -Wall -O2 -o bug bug.c; ./bug
> 0x8480
> % /usr/gcc/aeb/bin/gcc -v
> Reading specs from /usr/gcc/aeb/l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> % /usr/gcc/aeb/bin/gcc -v
> Reading specs from
> /usr/gcc/aeb/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/specs
> gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
> % /usr/gcc/aeb/bin/gcc -Wall -O2 -o nobug bug.c; ./nobug
> 0x0
Interesting. On a Sla
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> Ditto for gcc-2.95.2-13 from Debian (potato). It exhibits the same
> bug.
> Debian applies a total of 49 patches to gcc and the libraries.
>
> I am tempted to write a little script which discards the patches one
> by one and re-builds and re-tests each
On Friday November 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> ... RedHat's GCC snapshot "2.96" handles this case just fine.
>
> > Now, if you can isolate the relevant part of the diff between
> > 2.95.2 and RH 2.96...
>
> Maybe I have to be more precise in the statement "gcc 2.95.2 is buggy".
>
> I just
>> ... RedHat's GCC snapshot "2.96" handles this case just fine.
> Now, if you can isolate the relevant part of the diff between
> 2.95.2 and RH 2.96...
Maybe I have to be more precise in the statement "gcc 2.95.2 is buggy".
I just installed gcc 2.95.2 freshly ftp'ed from ftp.gnu.org, and
% /u
20 matches
Mail list logo
