From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9417 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 18:36:01 -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 9276 invoked by uid 71); 17 Feb 2003 18:36:00 -0000 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030217183600.9275.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Ronald Wahl Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer) Reply-To: Ronald Wahl X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00723.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/9711; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ronald Wahl To: Wolfgang Bangerth 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 19:35:15 +0100 On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:07:45 -0600 (CST), Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: >> 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. Just to prevent a misunderstanding here: I mean the "specs" file (/usr/lib/gcc-lib///specs). > 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! Ok, I will try this but it may take some time. - ron