From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
Cc: Philip Blundell <pb@nexus.co.uk>,
Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, gt@debian.org,
pb@debian.org, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
Subject: Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:18:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040312091848.A5904@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200403121208.i2CC8U0R014700@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>; from rearnsha@pc960.cambridge.arm.com on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:08:30PM +0000
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:08:30PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 06:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > - Is 14302 the bug that caused XFree86 4.3 builds to fail on Debian ARM?
> > >
> > > CCed Phil Blundell
> >
> > No. The XFree86 problem was also in GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, but this
> > was a different bug. I don't think we had a PR filed for the XFree86
> > thing.
> >
> > p.
> >
> >
>
> I don't think there is a PR for it since the code in question does not
> provoke the bug on a vanilla FSF build.
Now I'm confused. If the bug is not present in 3.3.3, then what is there
to backport? Or are you saying that the bug is present, but that this
particular testcase doesn't tweak the bug because of some other difference
between Debian's gcc and ours?
If this is the case, then this is yet another argument for my goal of
getting the Debian and FSF gcc's to be as identical as possible, so that
both will be as reliable as possible. If only one side does changes,
then those changes get less testing (especially on less common platforms).
> In fact, the patch for that bug hasn't been installed on the 3.3 branch
> yet. It needs a back-port of this change. However, it's not completely
> trivial since the code in question was a macro in arm.h for 3.3 whereas
> it's now a function in arm.c.
>
>
> 2004-02-25 Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
>
> * arm.c (arm_legitimate_index_p): For QImode the range of an offset
> is -4095...+4095 inclusive.
>
> Phil, were you going to commit the back-port you had done?
>
> R.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-12 17:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-11 23:58 Joe Buck
2004-03-12 2:49 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-12 6:42 ` Matthias Klose
2004-03-12 10:44 ` Philip Blundell
2004-03-12 12:08 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-03-12 12:44 ` Philip Blundell
2004-03-12 17:18 ` Joe Buck [this message]
2004-03-12 17:23 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-03-12 16:46 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-12 16:50 ` Phil Blundell
2004-03-12 17:12 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-12 13:21 ` Gerhard Tonn
2004-03-12 17:17 ` Phil Blundell
2004-03-12 6:58 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-03-12 9:57 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-03-14 22:12 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-03-16 8:57 ` Jim Wilson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040312091848.A5904@synopsys.com \
--to=joe.buck@synopsys.com \
--cc=debian-gcc@lists.debian.org \
--cc=doko@cs.tu-berlin.de \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gt@debian.org \
--cc=pb@debian.org \
--cc=pb@nexus.co.uk \
--cc=rearnsha@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).