From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6931 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2011 00:59:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 6922 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Feb 2011 00:59:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-iy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.210.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:59:47 +0000 Received: by iyj18 with SMTP id 18so577889iyj.20 for ; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:59:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.12.68 with SMTP id w4mr10906940ibw.50.1296694785392; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.19.130 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:59:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: hail marry (booting PowerMac 8600) From: kevin diggs To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 Hi, Uh ... What does your gut tell you about whether this could be a compiler bug? I could look for that till our sun burns out and probably not find it (I don't know what this computers life expectancy is - but it probably won't last that long). I'm a little more confident about finding something wrong in mesh.c? For the record I've bumped into two files (mesh.c from the Linux kernel and nsUnknownDecoder.cpp from Firefox 2.0.0.15pre) that won't run with 4.3.5. I think nsUnknownDecoder.cpp is ok with -O1. Both Linux and Firefox are pretty big programs. kevin On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > That doesn't suggest anything to me and actually it's rather surprising. > -O2 is much more aggressive than -O1 when it comes to breaking code > which superficially looks like it should work. When code breaks with > -O1 it usually means that the code is obviously broken. Or, of course, > there could be a compiler bug. > > Sorry I can't of much help here. What you are asking seems to be a > reasonable question but unfortunately the gcc release process doesn't > work in a way that makes it possible to answer it. > > Ian >