From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6807 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2002 22:43:23 -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 6800 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2002 22:43:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Oct 2002 22:43:22 -0000 Received: from warlock.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9KMf6G09372; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:41:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:28:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: David Edelsohn cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: ia64 linux doesn't bootstrap Message-ID: <38570000.1035153666@warlock.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200210190202.WAA30032@makai.watson.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01230.txt.bz2 --On Friday, October 18, 2002 10:02:32 PM -0400 David Edelsohn wrote: >>>>>> Mark Mitchell writes: > > Mark> But, nobody should every be trying to read or write those bits. Why > Mark> is that happenning? > > Mark> Anyhow, what is the triplet for the target? If I run bitfield7.C on > Mark> that target's cc1plus I take it I will see the failure? > > The target triplet seems to be any PowerPC (:-) target: > > powerpc-eabisim, powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu, powerpc-ibm-aix4.3.3.0 . > > 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? 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. 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. Then, mark it with an appropriate priority. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com