Re: Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-27 Thread Ville Herva
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

Re: Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-27 Thread Erik Mouw
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 co

Re: Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-26 Thread J . A . Magallon
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

Re: Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-26 Thread J . A . Magallon
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 PROT

Re: Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-26 Thread David Relson
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 > >

Re: Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-26 Thread Richard B. Johnson
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 > > fix

Re: Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-26 Thread Alan Cox
> > 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

Re: Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-26 Thread Jakub Jelinek
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 bet

Re: Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-26 Thread Alan Cox
> 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

Posible bug in gcc

2001-02-26 Thread David
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 ver