Franz Sirl writes:
> think since around mid-last-year. Somehow Debian slipped through, but I
> have been in contact with Daniel Jacobowitz, and I think he will upgrade
> the Debian package soon (or he already has?).
Starting with Debian gcc-2.95-2.95.3-6 Daniel applied your patches.
At 11:29 02.03.2001, Stephen Turner wrote:
This turns out to be a bug in gcc, not analog. On ppc, gcc 2.95.2 seems to
have alignment problems when a function is passed certain long lists of
arguments including doubles. But apparently the bug is fixed in the (not yet
released) 2.95.3 version of g
This turns out to be a bug in gcc, not analog. On ppc, gcc 2.95.2 seems to
have alignment problems when a function is passed certain long lists of
arguments including doubles. But apparently the bug is fixed in the (not yet
released) 2.95.3 version of gcc.
Thanks to Kevin Hendricks for diagnosing
Hi,
Regardless of the interface or code, the compiler should be able to handle
this case properly. I agree simpler is better but I am more interested in
making sure this bug is fixed in gcc if it hasn't already been.
If not, I personally want to see it fixed since the code I wrote for
sys_in
One look at that interface to printtree is all that is needed to see
where the real problem is. Whoever wrote this code is badly in need
of a long and meaningful "timeout" with _The Elements of Programming
Style_ by Kernighan & Plauger. KISS. Geez, build a structure and
pass the pointer, rather
Hi,
I have a working gcc HEAD build from about 2 weeks ago. If you send me some
standalone test code, I would be happy to test it.
I also have 2.95.3 too and will test with both.
Just create a main with a call to printtrace and have printtrace print all
the values and just return and I will t
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
>
> Here is a quick and dirty way to test. Move both double parameters to the
> beginning of the function and caller and the problem should go away.
>
> Another solution is to include a "dummy" int variable in both the caller
> and the function rig
Hi,
I think the second double value is confusing the compiler into skipping a
stack slot when it really shouldn't be doing that at all!
This is wierd.
Here is a quick and dirty way to test. Move both double parameters to the
beginning of the function and caller and the problem should go a
Thanks for your help with this, Kevin (I'm the upstream author).
> To see if it is indeed a parameter passing issue, I need to know what the
> types are for each parameter passed below (specifically if any are long
> long int or float or double types and what the return type is of that
> function
I'm not a gcc guru either, but what is the function prototype for
printtree()? The rules for passing parameters vary by what kind of
parameters are passed. Also, make SURE you have the CORRECT function
prototype for printtree() in the function that calls it. A classic
problem is not having a
Hi,
Most of the bugs in passing parameters have been fixed by the 2.95.3 series
Franz Sirl has created.
To see if it is indeed a parameter passing issue, I need to know what the
types are for each parameter passed below (specifically if any are long long
int or float or double types and what t
s coming through OK below) is a bit high
a number...
Any of the gcc gurus around?
Michel
> - Forwarded message from Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:43:09 + (GMT)
> From: Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Stephen
ephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:43:09 + (GMT)
From: Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#86356: analog: analog segfaults
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OK, I've discove
13 matches
Mail list logo
