On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:02:45PM -0500, you [Richard B. Johnson] claimed:
>
> Script started on Mon Feb 26 12:54:20 2001
> # gcc -o xxx bug.c
> # ./xxx
> Correct output: 5 2
> GCC output: 5 2
> # gcc --version
> egcs-2.91.66
> # gcc -O2 -o xxx bug.c
> # ./xxx
> Correct output: 5 2
> GCC
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:30:13PM +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> On 02.26 David wrote:
> > I think I heve found a bug in gcc. I have tried both egcs 1.1.2 (gcc
> > 2.91.66) and gcc 2.95.2 versions.
>
> gcc2.95.2 is sane in irix6.2, irix6.5 and solaris7sparc.
>
> The optimizer is not in the
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:30:13PM +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote:
On 02.26 David wrote:
I think I heve found a bug in gcc. I have tried both egcs 1.1.2 (gcc
2.91.66) and gcc 2.95.2 versions.
gcc2.95.2 is sane in irix6.2, irix6.5 and solaris7sparc.
The optimizer is not in the common
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:02:45PM -0500, you [Richard B. Johnson] claimed:
Script started on Mon Feb 26 12:54:20 2001
# gcc -o xxx bug.c
# ./xxx
Correct output: 5 2
GCC output: 5 2
# gcc --version
egcs-2.91.66
# gcc -O2 -o xxx bug.c
# ./xxx
Correct output: 5 2
GCC output: 10 5
#
On 02.26 David wrote:
> I hope you will find this information usefull.
>
> I am not in the linux-kernel list so, if posible, I would like to be
> personally CC'ed the answers/comments sent to the list in response to
> this posting.
>
> I think I heve found a bug in gcc. I have tried both egcs
On 02.26 Alan Cox wrote:
Also fails in gcc-2.96-0.38mdk (Mandrake Cooker):
rpm -q --changelog gcc
* Sat Feb 17 2001 Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.96-0.38mdk
- exit 0 if [ $1 = 0 ] if we are in %postun (to don't screwd up the
alternatives).
* Thu Feb 15 2001 David BAUDENS <[EMAIL
At 01:02 PM 2/26/01, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Well gcc-bugs would be the better place to send it but this is a
> known problem
> > > fixed in CVS gcc 2.95.3, CVS gcc 3.0 branch and gcc 2.96 (unofficial,
> Red Hat)
> >
> > I'm not sure if it is known, at least not known to me, but definitely not
>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Well gcc-bugs would be the better place to send it but this is a known problem
> > > fixed in CVS gcc 2.95.3, CVS gcc 3.0 branch and gcc 2.96 (unofficial, Red Hat)
> >
> > I'm not sure if it is known, at least not known to me, but definitely not
> >
> > Well gcc-bugs would be the better place to send it but this is a known problem
> > fixed in CVS gcc 2.95.3, CVS gcc 3.0 branch and gcc 2.96 (unofficial, Red Hat)
>
> I'm not sure if it is known, at least not known to me, but definitely not
> fixed in any of gcc 2.95.2, CVS gcc 3.0 branch,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:15:28PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I think I heve found a bug in gcc. I have tried both egcs 1.1.2 (gcc
> > 2.91.66) and gcc 2.95.2 versions.
> >
> > I am attaching you a simplified test program ('bug.c', a really simple
> > program).
>
> Well gcc-bugs would be the
> I think I heve found a bug in gcc. I have tried both egcs 1.1.2 (gcc
> 2.91.66) and gcc 2.95.2 versions.
>
> I am attaching you a simplified test program ('bug.c', a really simple
> program).
Well gcc-bugs would be the better place to send it but this is a known problem
fixed in CVS gcc
I hope you will find this information usefull.
I am not in the linux-kernel list so, if posible, I would like to be
personally CC'ed the answers/comments sent to the list in response to
this posting.
I think I heve found a bug in gcc. I have tried both egcs 1.1.2 (gcc
2.91.66) and gcc 2.95.2
I hope you will find this information usefull.
I am not in the linux-kernel list so, if posible, I would like to be
personally CC'ed the answers/comments sent to the list in response to
this posting.
I think I heve found a bug in gcc. I have tried both egcs 1.1.2 (gcc
2.91.66) and gcc 2.95.2
I think I heve found a bug in gcc. I have tried both egcs 1.1.2 (gcc
2.91.66) and gcc 2.95.2 versions.
I am attaching you a simplified test program ('bug.c', a really simple
program).
Well gcc-bugs would be the better place to send it but this is a known problem
fixed in CVS gcc 2.95.3,
Well gcc-bugs would be the better place to send it but this is a known problem
fixed in CVS gcc 2.95.3, CVS gcc 3.0 branch and gcc 2.96 (unofficial, Red Hat)
I'm not sure if it is known, at least not known to me, but definitely not
fixed in any of gcc 2.95.2, CVS gcc 3.0 branch, CVS gcc
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
Well gcc-bugs would be the better place to send it but this is a known problem
fixed in CVS gcc 2.95.3, CVS gcc 3.0 branch and gcc 2.96 (unofficial, Red Hat)
I'm not sure if it is known, at least not known to me, but definitely not
fixed in any
At 01:02 PM 2/26/01, Alan Cox wrote:
Well gcc-bugs would be the better place to send it but this is a
known problem
fixed in CVS gcc 2.95.3, CVS gcc 3.0 branch and gcc 2.96 (unofficial,
Red Hat)
I'm not sure if it is known, at least not known to me, but definitely not
fixed in any
On 02.26 Alan Cox wrote:
Also fails in gcc-2.96-0.38mdk (Mandrake Cooker):
rpm -q --changelog gcc
* Sat Feb 17 2001 Chmouel Boudjnah [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.96-0.38mdk
- exit 0 if [ $1 = 0 ] if we are in %postun (to don't screwd up the
alternatives).
* Thu Feb 15 2001 David BAUDENS [EMAIL
On 02.26 David wrote:
I hope you will find this information usefull.
I am not in the linux-kernel list so, if posible, I would like to be
personally CC'ed the answers/comments sent to the list in response to
this posting.
I think I heve found a bug in gcc. I have tried both egcs 1.1.2
19 matches
Mail list logo
