From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1158 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2002 23:26:01 -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 1142 invoked by uid 71); 16 Dec 2002 23:26:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021216232601.1141.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/8889: g++ 3.2.1 (also 3.2 it) miscompile Qt Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00874.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/8889; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/8889: g++ 3.2.1 (also 3.2 it) miscompile Qt Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:16:12 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:11:38 +0100 From: Felix von Leitner To: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/8889: g++ 3.2.1 (also 3.2 it) miscompile Qt Wolfgang, I find it highly insulting that you are now trying ot threaten me in this childish way. If you think it is too much to ask of THE GNU COMPILER to expect it to properly compile THE GNU LIBC using THE GNU BINUTILS, then it's good to hear now and I will switch to Windows. At least they don't try to bullshit me like this. In case you really didn't notice: I gave you _all_ of the information I have. I told you the binutils version, the gcc version, the glibc version, and the qt version, and I gave the the CFLAGS I used. And now you tell me it's too much to ask that you at least try to reproduce the problem? Instead you give me vague conspiracy theories about potential third party C++ libraries I might use (which, by the way, is not the case, as I also wrote in the email). So if you feel I am withholding information, I can't help you. I manage quite a few open source projects myself. One of them is a libc. I wouldn't be bothering you if I hadn't exhausted the other options. If trying to reproduce a reported is too much to ask, then please get out of the way and let people handle this who are willing to invest the necessary time. > I'm not telling you anything except for this: gcc is in most part a > volunteer project. No, really? I didn't know! Now _that_ changes everything! Of course then you don't have to try to reproduce problems... ?! What the hell are you smoking there? > Nobody's paying me for the work, and you can't force me to do > something. Why do you waste my time with this? Stop whining and do something useful. If it ain't for gcc, then do something else useful. > If you don't want to cooperate and try to provide more information, > that's fine with me, but don't insult me. ROTFL. So I insulted you. I think I start to understand why so many Americans need therapy. > It's not reasonable to ask me to build Qt+KDE with a new compiler just to > experience "that it does not work". That's why I only asked you to build Qt and xca, which is about 1/4 the efford. You didn't even build gcc and Qt yourself. What makes you think you are even qualified to debug this? > We need more information to figure out what goes wrong. No, you don't. Just build Qt and xca, start it, and see if it segfaults within the first second for no apparent reason. > I leave this report in feedback state. Good. Felix