Message-Id:	<199803101519.RAA26988@ieva06.lanet.lv>
From:	"Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT laima DOT acad DOT latnet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:16:11 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: bug in gcc 2.8.0 (and 2.7.2)
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References:	<35050C39 DOT 88DDFFEF AT acad DOT latnet DOT lv>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980310125809.4314A-100000@is>

> Date:          Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:00:58 +0200 (IST)
> From:          Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
> To:            Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT acad DOT latnet DOT lv>
> Cc:            djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
> Subject:       Re: bug in gcc 2.8.0 (and 2.7.2)

> 
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> 
> > It is not solved in 2.8.1.
> 
> Then it should IMHO be reported to the GCC maintainers ASAP.

Well. I sent a message with source and output of gcc -v

> 
> In addition, it might be a good idea to selectively disable the individual
> optimization options which are enabled under -O1 and see which one of them
> causes this.  People could then disable that option on lib/specs to work
> around the bug until it is solved. 
> 

I tried to isolate the option that causes this problem. Unfortunatelly I 
didn't suceed to find such option. 'gcc -O1' gives 1 as the result. I 
didn't find any optimization option that causes this problem. All options 
I tried didn't give this problem. As I looked in sources of gcc I tested 
all options that are switched on by -O1 (also together) but without 
results.

Andris Pavenis

- Raw text -