From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10921 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2002 23:51:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10796 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2002 23:51:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e5.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 23:51:30 -0000 Received: from northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (northrelay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.206]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9LNow7U194244; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:50:58 -0400 Received: from dyn9-47-17-68.beaverton.ibm.com (dyn9-47-17-68.beaverton.ibm.com [9.47.17.68]) by northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id g9LNotcI138990; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:50:56 -0400 Received: (from janis@localhost) by dyn9-47-17-68.beaverton.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14615; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:52:53 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:49:00 -0000 From: Janis Johnson To: Mark Mitchell Cc: David Edelsohn , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: ia64 linux doesn't bootstrap Message-ID: <20021021165253.A14603@us.ibm.com> References: <200210190202.WAA30032@makai.watson.ibm.com> <38570000.1035153666@warlock.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <38570000.1035153666@warlock.codesourcery.com>; from mark@codesourcery.com on Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 03:41:06PM -0700 X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01296.txt.bz2 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 > 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