From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-29432-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16340 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2003 21:46:01 -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 16326 invoked by uid 71); 15 Feb 2003 21:46:01 -0000
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:46:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030215214601.16325.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Ronald Wahl <Ronald.Wahl@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>
Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686,
 mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
Reply-To: Ronald Wahl <Ronald.Wahl@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>
X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00669.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR optimization/9711; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Ronald Wahl <Ronald.Wahl@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>
To: bangerth@dealii.org
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
   gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686,
 mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:36:38 +0100

 On 14 Feb 2003 22:15:53 -0000, bangerth  wrote:
 
 > Synopsis: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
 > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
 > State-Changed-By: bangerth
 > State-Changed-When: Fri Feb 14 22:15:53 2003
 > State-Changed-Why:
 >     We need more information to tackle this problem. Please
 >     review
 >       http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
 >     for what we need and provide this information.
 
 >     Thanks
 >       Wolfgang
 
 >
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9711
 
 Maybe we can forget all about my bug report if one could tell me if
 it should matter if I specify march/mcpu options in cc1_options
 instead of cc1_cpu in the spec file. If this really matters then it
 should be documented somewhere I think. I had these options appended
 to cc1_options. If I move'em to cc1_cpu the problems go away.
 
 The -fomit-frame-pointer issue was already reported and there is an
 patch floating around. (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-07/msg00367.html)
 which I haven't tried yet.
 
 regards,
 ron