From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20577 invoked by alias); 18 May 2003 18:46:00 -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 20557 invoked by uid 71); 18 May 2003 18:46:00 -0000 Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 18:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030518184600.20556.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Jan Hubicka Subject: Re: target/10213: [3.4 regression] optimization problem with ix86 fast prologue with -O2 -fPIC Reply-To: Jan Hubicka X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02040.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/10213; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jan Hubicka 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 Cc: Subject: Re: target/10213: [3.4 regression] optimization problem with ix86 fast prologue with -O2 -fPIC Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 20:40:46 +0200 > 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. Can you point me to the patch? I was off for a while and missed the thread. In case the fast prologues was disabled, I would like to fix the real problem instead. Honza