From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-15866-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6464 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2002 10:26:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6432 invoked by uid 71); 18 Mar 2002 10:26:03 -0000
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 02:26:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20020318102603.6430.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: c/5974: gcc 3.0.4 generates bad code to reference ((packed)) struct
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00634.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c/5974; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Richard Hirst <rhirst@linuxcare.com>
Cc: jakub@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
   nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c/5974: gcc 3.0.4 generates bad code to reference ((packed)) struct
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:17:49 -0500

 On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 09:32:44AM +0000, Richard Hirst wrote:
 >   Are fixed versions of 2.96 and 3.0 likely to appear, or do I have to
 > code round the problem until 3.1+ becomes the standard compiler?
 
 Fixed 2.96-RH version is going to appear fairly soon, the rest (GNUPro 2.96
 and 3.0 I have no control about).
 
 	Jakub