Re: optimization/4490

Re: optimization/4490

[Richard Henderson]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/4490; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/4490
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:31:41 -0700

 On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 07:43:29PM -0500, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
 > What startles me with that one is that it is suspended. What is the reason 
 > for that?
 
 I use "suspended" for things we acknowledge are bugs, but
 have no plans to ever fix.
 
 
 r~

Re: optimization/4490

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/4490; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/4490
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:18:59 -0500 (CDT)

 > > What startles me with that one is that it is suspended. What is the reason 
 > > for that?
 > 
 > I use "suspended" for things we acknowledge are bugs, but
 > have no plans to ever fix.
 
 I'm not sure whether I like the approach, but I see that it's consistent 
 with our guidelines. For similar cases: can you leave a note in the audit 
 trail of this "no plans to fix" when you suspend a PR? 
 
 Thanks for the clarification! 
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

Re: optimization/4490

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/4490; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: optimization/4490
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:40:19 -0500 (CDT)

 This can be reproduced still with today's 3.3 and 3.4 branches.
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

optimization/4490

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/4490; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: rth@gnu.gcc.org
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: optimization/4490
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:43:29 -0500 (CDT)

 Richard,
 I just closed a report for which I found that it is a duplicate of 4490. 
 What startles me with that one is that it is suspended. What is the reason 
 for that? If this just waits for someone to fix it, I think we'd better 
 leave it analyzed. "suspended" only seems like the proper choice when we 
 are waiting for external events to happen (resolution of a standard defect 
 report, branch to merge, etc).
 
 Thanks
   Wolfgang
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

Re: optimization/4490

[Reichelt]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/4490; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Reichelt <reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, georg@steffers.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: optimization/4490
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:37:49 +0200

 Hi,
 
 the problem can be reduced to the following testcase:
 
 void f()
 {
   unsigned long long ull;
   double d=ull;
 }
 
 I get a seg-fault when I try to compile this with
   "gcc -m128bit-long-double -c <filename>"
 using gcc 3.0 on an i686-pc-linux-gnu.
 The problem seems to be the cast from "unsigned long long"
 to "double" with "-m128bit-long-double" enabled
 (so it's probably not an optimization issue).
 
 In the original testcase this leads into trouble with the last
 "printf" statement in the function "compress".
 
 Greetings,
 Volker Reichelt
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&pr=4490&database=gcc