From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25270 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2003 10:56:02 -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 25211 invoked by uid 71); 18 Mar 2003 10:56:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030318105601.25174.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Martin Blom Subject: Re: target/7248: [m68k] broken "inclusive or" code Reply-To: Martin Blom X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01207.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/7248; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Martin Blom To: Andreas Schwab Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, , , Subject: Re: target/7248: [m68k] broken "inclusive or" code Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:50:13 +0100 (CET) | On 14 Jan 2003 bangerth@dealii.org wrote: | | Old Synopsis: gcc 2.95.3 for m68k generates broken "inclusive or" code | New Synopsis: [m68k] broken "inclusive or" code | | State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback | State-Changed-By: bangerth | State-Changed-When: Tue Jan 14 13:38:55 2003 | State-Changed-Why: | Your fix has been applied already sometime back in 1997. Do | you have the chance to test the problem with some newer | version of gcc? gcc2.95.x is no longer maintained. On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Andreas Schwab wrote: > I can still reproduce the bug with gcc 3.4 as of today. The included > patch is still needed. There are no changes around this place since the > file was imported into CVS. Hi Andreas and the rest ... That's what I thought when I looked in the CVS before reporting the bug. Unfortunately, I've not yet been able to verify it myself by actually running a test program built with gcc 3.x for m68k (because of, well, "lack of time" and lack of a system able to run gcc 3.x for m68k). Sorry about that. -- ---- Martin Blom --------------------------- martin@blom.org ---- Eccl 1:18 http://martin.blom.org/