--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 00:52
---
Blah, turning on/off strict aliasing via the option pragma would be a good
idea.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37106
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-04 20:08 ---
Subject: Bug 37106
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 4 20:06:33 2008
New Revision: 141584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141584
Log:
PR c/37106
* c-common.c (parse_optimize_options):
--- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-04 20:24 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 18:37 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Digging the archives the failures on x86_64-linux when using -fpic or -fPIC
appeared between:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-07/msg02246.html
and
--- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-10-15 18:54 ---
... I don't know how to do that ...
What I do is to edit the file gcc/DATESTAMP to have
[revision number] date
instead of just
date
The minor drawback is that there is a conflict with svn update each time the
--- Comment #15 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-10-15 18:58 ---
I have forgotten to say that I also put the revision numbers in the name of the
logs of the tests so I can grep the files for some pattern and have the list of
the revisions for which it appears.
--
--- Comment #16 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-10-15 21:06
---
(In reply to comment #13)
Sorry no. I see that some postings have the revision number in the postiong
subject, but I don't know how to do that nor why everyone isn't having that
done by default. It would have
--- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-10-14 10:57 ---
Possible candidates revisions 138075, 138089, and 138092.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37106
