* sh-coff : what/where is gcc-2.95.4 ?
@ 2001-09-13 5:48 GNUTeam
2001-09-13 7:56 ` Joe Buck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: GNUTeam @ 2001-09-13 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc, gcc-cvs
Hi !
There seems to be lot of discussion on gcc mailing list about gcc-2.95.4.
What *exactly* is it with respect to gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.0 ?
since the SH target is broken since gcc - 3.0 , and gcc-2.95.3 has been
branched off way back,
I hope gcc-2.95.4 is some good news.
Regards
GNUTeam
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: sh-coff : what/where is gcc-2.95.4 ?
2001-09-13 5:48 sh-coff : what/where is gcc-2.95.4 ? GNUTeam
@ 2001-09-13 7:56 ` Joe Buck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 2001-09-13 7:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gnuteam; +Cc: gcc
> There seems to be lot of discussion on gcc mailing list about gcc-2.95.4.
> What *exactly* is it with respect to gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.0 ?
It would be a minor bug-fix version of 2.95.3.
> since the SH target is broken since gcc - 3.0 , and gcc-2.95.3 has been
> branched off way back,
> I hope gcc-2.95.4 is some good news.
It would probably make no difference for SH users, and be the same as
2.95.3, unless there are critical SH-specific bug reports on file.
(Someone will certainly correct me if I am wrong).
> Regards
> GNUTeam
I seriously doubt that your mother named you "GNUTeam", and using such
a moniker when you have nothing as far as I can tell with the GNU project
is kind of annoying. We use our real names on this list.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: sh-coff : what/where is gcc-2.95.4 ?
@ 2001-09-14 11:20 Hartmut Schirmer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Hartmut Schirmer @ 2001-09-14 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bernds; +Cc: jbuck, gnuteam, gcc
2nd try, first mail bounced ...
------
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, you wrote:
>> There seems to be lot of discussion on gcc mailing list about gcc-2.95.4.
>> What *exactly* is it with respect to gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.0 ?
>
>It would be a minor bug-fix version of 2.95.3.
>
>> since the SH target is broken since gcc - 3.0 , and gcc-2.95.3 has been
>> branched off way back,
>> I hope gcc-2.95.4 is some good news.
>
>It would probably make no difference for SH users, and be the same as
>2.95.3, unless there are critical SH-specific bug reports on file.
>(Someone will certainly correct me if I am wrong).
There is a critical fix for SH wich should go into 2.95.4
int f(int x) [ return 1000+x; }
will return 1000 otherwise.
Hartmut
Fri Mar 3 12:49:28 2000 J"orn Rennecke <amylaar@cygnus.co.uk>
* reload1.c (reload_combine_note_use): Handle return register USEs.
REG case: Handle multi-hard-register hard regs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-09-14 11:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-09-13 5:48 sh-coff : what/where is gcc-2.95.4 ? GNUTeam
2001-09-13 7:56 ` Joe Buck
2001-09-14 11:20 Hartmut Schirmer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).