From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25088 invoked by alias); 20 May 2003 17:16:05 -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 25029 invoked by uid 71); 20 May 2003 17:16:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030520171604.25007.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Andrew Pinski Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86 Reply-To: Andrew Pinski X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02190.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Andrew Pinski To: Andrew Pinski Cc: Wolfgang Bangerth , Christian Ehrhardt , , , Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86 Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:14:22 -0400 I can reproduce it with `GNU assembler 2.11.93.0.2 20020207' tough so it looks like it binutils fault but it has already been fixed. Thanks, Andrew Pinski On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 13:08 US/Eastern, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Mine is the top of the tree from the fsf's tree: > GNU assembler 2.14.90 20030520 > > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski > > On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 13:05 US/Eastern, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > >> >>> Feeding this assembler file into gcc 3.2 on an Intel box works for me >>> and the program doesn't crash! This might mean that we have an >>> assembler/binutils problem here. >> >> Whereas if I do the same, it crashes. So you seem to have a point :-) >> >> My binutils are >> 2.11.92.0.10 20011021 (SuSE) >> (this is what SuSE shipped with 8.0). What do you have? >> >> W. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> Wolfgang Bangerth email: >> bangerth@ices.utexas.edu >> www: >> http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/ >> >> >> >> > > >