Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

[Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:08:30PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 06:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > - Is 14302 the bug that caused XFree86 4.3 builds to fail on Debian ARM?
> > > 
> > > CCed Phil Blundell
> > 
> > No.  The XFree86 problem was also in GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, but this
> > was a different bug.  I don't think we had a PR filed for the XFree86
> > thing.
> > 
> > p.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I don't think there is a PR for it since the code in question does not 
> provoke the bug on a vanilla FSF build.

Now I'm confused.  If the bug is not present in 3.3.3, then what is there
to backport?  Or are you saying that the bug is present, but that this
particular testcase doesn't tweak the bug because of some other difference
between Debian's gcc and ours?

If this is the case, then this is yet another argument for my goal of
getting the Debian and FSF gcc's to be as identical as possible, so that
both will be as reliable as possible.  If only one side does changes,
then those changes get less testing (especially on less common platforms).

> In fact, the patch for that bug hasn't been installed on the 3.3 branch 
> yet.  It needs a back-port of this change.  However, it's not completely 
> trivial since the code in question was a macro in arm.h for 3.3 whereas 
> it's now a function in arm.c.
> 
> 
> 2004-02-25  Richard Earnshaw  <rearnsha@arm.com>
> 
>         * arm.c (arm_legitimate_index_p): For QImode the range of an offset
>         is -4095...+4095 inclusive.
> 
> Phil, were you going to commit the back-port you had done?
> 
> R.