public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "wilson at specifixinc dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:15:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040629171451.25669.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040622082116.16130.hjl@lucon.org>


------- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com  2004-06-29 17:14 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 00:44, hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> I noticed those regressions while compiling 2.6.7 kernel for Itantium 1. I
> agree that a single bug report is better than many separate ones in this
> case. But I was told that I should open separate ones.

You were asked to file separate bug reports because you never clearly
stated that all of the bug reports were linux kernel compilation
problems.  It was obvious to me, but it wasn't obvious to others.  So it
looked like you were filing unrelated bugs together which is bad.  You
also made the mistake of adding new testcases to a bug that was already
closed, without explaining why.

I see you have filed a new meta-bug 16278 for this.  Thanks.  It would
have been better if you mentioned how to configure the linux kernel to
reproduce the error though.  You have to explicitly enable the Itanium1
support when configuring the linux kernel, and then that automatically
adds the -mtune=merced option to CFLAGS.

> Binutils is different. People with Itanium 1 machines still need improved
> assembler and linker. But they don't necessarily need to upgrade gcc.

If you are assuming that a new binutils will work with an old gcc, then
I think you are wrong.  The interfaces between binutils and gcc change
occasionally, and we can not support using mismatched versions.  If we
are telling people to use old gcc releases, then we must also tell them
to use old binutils releases that worked with that old gcc release.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-06-29 17:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-06-22  8:21 [Bug target/16130] New: " hjl at lucon dot org
2004-06-22  8:22 ` [Bug target/16130] " hjl at lucon dot org
2004-06-22  8:23 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-06-22  8:24 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-06-22 15:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-24  1:19 ` wilson at specifixinc dot com
2004-06-25  8:28 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-06-29  3:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-29 16:39 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-06-29 17:15 ` wilson at specifixinc dot com [this message]
2004-07-07 15:11 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-07 15:16 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-07 15:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040629171451.25669.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).