On 13 April 2006 20:04, Martin Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:32:39PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 13 April 2006 13:37, Martin Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> I posted a couple weeks ago to the list, but never got any responses.
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-04/msg00054.html
>>>
>>> mh
>>
On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:34 PM, Ching-Hua Chang wrote:
We had ported gcc-3.4.2 to our own RISC, and meet a strange
case in optimization level 3 (-O3).
We don't have the resources to help with very old versions of gcc on
this list. I'd recommend upgrading to gcc-4.2. If it then works,
you ca
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:32:39PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 13 April 2006 13:37, Martin Hicks wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:34:10PM +0800, Ching-Hua Chang wrote:
> >> We had ported gcc-3.4.2 to our own RISC, and meet a strange
> >> case in optimization level 3 (-O3).
> >>
> >> The
On 13 April 2006 13:37, Martin Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:34:10PM +0800, Ching-Hua Chang wrote:
>> We had ported gcc-3.4.2 to our own RISC, and meet a strange
>> case in optimization level 3 (-O3).
>>
>> The compiler produce wrong assembly code in O3 and
>> correct result if we add
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:34:10PM +0800, Ching-Hua Chang wrote:
> We had ported gcc-3.4.2 to our own RISC, and meet a strange
> case in optimization level 3 (-O3).
>
> The compiler produce wrong assembly code in O3 and
> correct result if we add -fno-inline flag.
>
> It seems that there some pr