Re: ia64 linux doesn't bootstrap

[Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com>]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 03:41:06PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Friday, October 18, 2002 10:02:32 PM -0400 David Edelsohn 
> <dje@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > The failure, as Janis mentioned, is g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7_y.C
> > which as an ABI compatibility test expands on the original
> > g++.dg/abi/bitfield7.C test.  bitfield7.C *does not* access the field and
> > does not ICE.  Only Janis's new test, bitfield7_y.C, operates on the
> > bitfield eliciting the ICE.  This may be a failure which only visibly ICEs
> > on big-endian targets due to the logic in extract_bit_field.
> 
> I don't understand the subject line of this thread.  Does this actually
> affect a bootstrap on ia64 GNU/Linux?

No (as has already been pointed out today).

> If the only way to get this problem is with a bitfield longer than its
> type, it's not a terribly important bug.  That code didn't used to be
> accepted by GCC 2.95.x; it gave a sorry.  Now we crash on some targets.

What happens with GCC 3.[012]?  My attempt to build a cross compiler
failed.

> This is a bug well worth fixing, but I'm trying to figure out if I need
> to look at it *right now*.
> 
> In any case, please get it into GNATS.

middle-end/8306: ICE for bitfield7_y.C in C++ compatibility tests
 
> Then, mark it with an appropriate priority.

I left it with the default; someone can change it if it turns out to be
a regression.  It affects sparc and arm as well as powerpc.

Janis