From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13993 invoked by alias); 15 May 2003 04:41:54 -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 13973 invoked by uid 48); 15 May 2003 04:41:54 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 04:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030515044154.13972.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, jh@suse.cz, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, snyder@fnal.gov From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, jh@suse.cz, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, snyder@fnal.gov, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/10213: [3.4 regression] optimization problem with ix86 fast prologue with -O2 -fPIC X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01758.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: [3.4 regression] optimization problem with ix86 fast prologue with -O2 -fPIC State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->feedback State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Thu May 15 04:41:54 2003 State-Changed-Why: So, Scott, what's your verdict: should it be closed? What's the state on the 3.3 branch? Other question: if it's "fixed" by just disabling something (is this what you mean by "switching off") -- will we see the problem happening again if this code patch is switched on again by someone? Or was the code that produced the wrong code removed altogether? If this isn't the case, then I'd say we should keep the report, but lacking technical insight I leave this up to you. Thanks W. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10213