From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9688 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 17:16:00 -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 9674 invoked by uid 71); 17 Feb 2003 17:16:00 -0000 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030217171600.9673.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer) Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00721.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/9711; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Ronald Wahl Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:07:45 -0600 (CST) > 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. I don't know anything about the spec files. However, we would certainly be interested in having the piece of code that you say is miscompiled being identified. If you could try to track that down, and show us how it is miscompiled, that would be great! Thanks W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/