Re: This can't be right...

Re: This can't be right...

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <199708231701.MAA16067@monolith.solon.com>you write:
  > Well, it's right.  'unsigned short' as an old-style parameter is
  > really int, and cannot match 'unsigned short' in a prototype earlier
  > in the file.
Thanks.  I've checked in a fix for this (just make the args
unsigned ints).  It'll be in the next snapshot.

Jeff

Re: New bugs in egcs

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <m0x2JoO-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org>you write:
  > Hi,
  > 
  > Those extra failures don't exist in my gcc2 ss-970802.
So, after re-building gcc with jfc's patch, then re-running the
testsuite, how many of these new failures remain?

Jeff

Re: 970814: bootstrap failure for i386-pc-solaris2.5.1: _sys_siglistp dcl

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <yzqu3gh2hh3.fsf@boom.eng.ascend.com>you write:
  > collect2.c:217: conflicting types for `_sys_siglistp'
Yup.  Ran into it myself today while trying to get a 68k 4.4bsd
machine bootstrapped.

  > One fix is to define DONT_DECLARE_SYS_SIGLIST in
  > config/i386/xm-sysv4.h.  Better still would be to use autoconf
  > to test for this -- then remove the definitions from these files:
I'm going to look into having autoconf do it for us, but not
being an autoconf wiz, it might take a little while :-)

Jeff

Re: One bug in unroll.c

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <199708232227.SAA13018@jfc.>you write:
  > 
  > Sat Aug 23 18:19:40 1997  John F. Carr  <jfc@mit.edu>
  > 
  > 	* unroll.c (find_splittable_givs): If ADDRESS_COST is defined
  > 	combine_givs_p may return true for registers which are different
  > 	but related.  Check that mult_val and add_val are equal before
  > 	sharing registers.
I've installed this patch, but without the #ifdef ADDRESS_COST
conditional.

Jeff

Re: One bug in unroll.c

[Jim Wilson]

	 I think if the current aliase code is released in
	egcs as is, the egcs project may start on a wrong foot. To the
	least, the first public release of egcs should not be worse
	than gcc2 ss-970802, which is egcs based upon.

The whole point of this project is to add new features and optimizations to
gcc.  There will of course be problems when new features are added in.

The intial list of new features (including the aliasing code) has certainly
caused problems, and we are working on fixing them as fast as we can.  It has
only been 7 days since the project started, though.  Give us some more time
to fix the bugs, and egcs will be as good as the gcc2 development sources
that we started with.

We will of course make a public release only when egcs is stable enough
for general use.

We will then add in some more features/optimizations and start all over
again with the bug fixing.

Jim

This can't be right...

[Peter Seebach]

---
cc -c  -DIN_GCC   -g     -I. -I.. -I. -I./.. -I./../config call.c
call.c: In function strictly_better:
call.c:1090: argument `x' doesn't match function prototype
call.c:1090: a formal parameter type that promotes to `int'
call.c:1090: can match only `int' in the prototype
call.c:1090: argument `y' doesn't match function prototype
call.c:1090: a formal parameter type that promotes to `int'
call.c:1090: can match only `int' in the prototype
*** Error code 1
---

(cc is gcc 1.42)

Well, it's right.  'unsigned short' as an old-style parameter is
really int, and cannot match 'unsigned short' in a prototype earlier
in the file.

-s