Hi Matthew, El mié, 16-03-2005 a las 08:08 +1100, Matthew Palmer escribió: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:19:29PM +0200, Modestas Vainius wrote: > > The bug only affects the binary compiled with gcc-3.3 using -O1 or greater > > level of optimizations. gdb yields the following backtrace on at the time > > This looks to me (as a total gcc novice) to be a bug in the optimizer for > amd64, then. Would you agree? It seems to be the case and it would be great if you could provide the gcc team with a standalone piece of code that reproduces the problem. This bug could also be affecting the newer compilers in unknown ways. I recently reported a bug we were only seeing with gcc-4.0 and they tagged it as a regression in all the releases since 3.3 (up to and including 4.1). In the worst case (where it's been fixed in a more recent branch), it will still help make the pure64 archive more stable. Although this is the first time I hear about this package (thus I've never ran it), I can give you a hand with the report if you need. Thanks, -- Javier Kohen <jkohen@users.sourceforge.net> ICQ: blashyrkh #2361802 Jabber: jkohen@jabber.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente