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
next prev 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: linkBe 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).