From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29474 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2002 20:46:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29447 invoked by uid 71); 16 Dec 2002 20:46:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021216204603.29446.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c/7872: ICE on legal code, regression from 3.0 and 2.9* Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00862.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/7872; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Richard Zidlicky Cc: bangerth@dealii.org, , Subject: Re: c/7872: ICE on legal code, regression from 3.0 and 2.9* Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:41:09 -0600 (CST) On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 03:45:46PM -0000, bangerth@dealii.org wrote: > > Synopsis: ICE on legal code, regression from 3.0 and 2.9* > > > > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > > State-Changed-By: bangerth > > State-Changed-When: Wed Nov 27 07:45:44 2002 > > State-Changed-Why: > > Richard, same here: I don't have an m68k so cannot check your problem. > you can, the bugreport should have enough information to configure the > cross-compiler and all the necessary input to test the problem on any > architecture. I've never done it, and would not know whether the results I get are right or wrong. So I prefer to leave things like that to people who are more familiar with that than me, and rather concentrate on further searching the database for reports. > > What happened to the patch you appended? I does not seem > > to have been applied... > > Unfortunately untill now I have seen absolutely no response to this > bugreport, thanks for looking at it. > > Quite possible my solution is not the correct or best one, I noticed > the problem would also go away if m68k had CLASS_CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE > defined. However the gcc docs describe this as something that should > affect floating point only so I am not sure about this. Try to find the maintainers of the code and ask them for their opinion, possibly in private mail. Maybe that helps, I see too many bugs slipping through the cracks. Otherwise you may also send the patch to the list, and put a "Unreviewed patch" in the subject to indicate that this is a long-pending matter. Regards Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth