From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11968 invoked by alias); 10 May 2003 23:36:01 -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 11891 invoked by uid 71); 10 May 2003 23:36:00 -0000 Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 23:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030510233600.11889.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Dara Hazeghi Subject: Re: optimization/6880: Inlining inefficiencies Reply-To: Dara Hazeghi X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01025.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/6880; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dara Hazeghi To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, dann@godzilla.ics.uci.edu Cc: Subject: Re: optimization/6880: Inlining inefficiencies Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 16:31:39 -0700 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit- trail&database=gcc&pr=6880 Hello, the version of gcc this bug was reported against is quite old. Would it be possible to test against a newer version of gcc (ie 3.2.3 or 3.3 prerelease) and determine whether the problem reported is still present? Thanks, Dara