--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 15:57
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> You mean ABI change, because the input register seems to be f8, instead of
> in0 (as would be need for this union)? I'm not sure, but it looks fishy
> at least.
Actually it is not an AB
--- Comment #11 from matz at suse dot de 2005-11-09 15:32 ---
You mean ABI change, because the input register seems to be f8, instead of
in0 (as would be need for this union)? I'm not sure, but it looks fishy
at least.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24661
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 15:23
---
Hmm, do we have an ABI change in 4.1:
We get in 4.1.0:
ld2d:
.prologue
.body
fnorm.d f8 = f8
br.ret.sptk.many b0
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24661
--- Comment #9 from matz at suse dot de 2005-11-09 14:49 ---
A shorter testcase (which at least breaks on SuSEs 3.3-hammer compiler) is:
---
typedef union value {
long double d;
} Value;
double ld2d(Value v) {
return v.d;
}
---
--- Comment #8 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2005-11-04 02:09 ---
yes, debian 3.3.6-10 (3.3.6) and 3.4.4-9 (3.4.5 20051015) both fail in the same
way ... debian's 4.0.3 (4.0.3 20051023) however fails in a different way:
sym.c: In function 'vtoa':
sym.c:28: internal compiler error: in fi
--- Comment #7 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2005-11-04 01:46 ---
if that's the case, since this doesnt seem to be a regression (unless it worked
in like 3.2.x or older), does that mean i'm sol with 3.4.x/4.0.x ? :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24661
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-04 01:06 ---
Then maybe this has been fixed in 4.1.0 already.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24661
--- Comment #5 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2005-11-04 00:55 ---
ok, gcc-4.0.2 on Gentoo with no Gentoo patches fails same way
i'll see about creating a Debian chroot to doubly verify
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24661
--- Comment #4 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2005-11-04 00:12 ---
i had a SuSE guy report the samething, but i'll go ahead and rebuild a vanilla
4.0.2 to be sure
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24661
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-04 00:07 ---
I cannot reproduce this on the mainline. Are you sure that this is not due to
a modification that gentoo has done?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Add
10 matches
Mail list logo
