From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10055 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2004 20:04:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10035 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2004 20:04:07 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040114200407.10034.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "rth at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030627121325.11350.debian-gcc@lists.debian.org> References: <20030627121325.11350.debian-gcc@lists.debian.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/11350] [3.3/3.4 regression] undefined labels with -Os -fPIC X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01611.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rth at redhat dot com 2004-01-14 20:04 ------- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] undefined labels with -Os -fPIC On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:15:12AM -0000, gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > Patch here: . > > So RTH, what is your final word? Not having a test case on hand that will fail because of this patch, I guess I'll approve it. I do seem to recall problems in the other direction but I can't point to them.o r~ -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11350