--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-12 13:44
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 32044 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-19 02:02 ---
Well, this is getting funny.
You and apparently others at gcc are looking at the computer-sofware world
through a high powered telescope and in this drastically reduced field of
vision you-all only see gcc. I refres
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 23:48
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Mr Pinski
Well I am going to help now you have provided the preprocessed source for the
missed optimization (since that is all what it is), read the history behind
libgcc (it dates back b
--- Comment #9 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 23:45 ---
Mr Pinski
I give up. I hereby formally request that you, Mr. Pinksi, refrain from having
anything to do with problem reports originating from myself (Rainer
Malitzke-Goes alias Ray Malitzke). I rather see them langui
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 23:13 ---
> You might just as well close on the basis of your last paragraph.
> This is really a documentation issue in getting the info to people like
> kernel.org and others writing programs for free-standing or embedded
--- Comment #7 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 23:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=13581)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13581&action=view)
timekeeping.i from ./kernel/time/timekeeping.c
Second requested attachemnt.
Observation:
You might just as wel
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 22:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=13580)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13580&action=view)
time.i form ./kernel/time.c
first requested attachment
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31990
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 21:59 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Andy!
Don't call me Andy! It is childish.
> Taking your your advice to calm down I looked for the built-in.c file you
> wanted preprocessed. Well, it does not exist as built-in.o is a co
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 21:11 ---
Andy!
Taking your your advice to calm down I looked for the built-in.c file you
wanted preprocessed. Well, it does not exist as built-in.o is a composite
object file.
The Kernel peoople being a more helpful and b) h
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 19:09 ---
> 3. I referred to to the experts in both organizations and I do not believe
> that
> you are the gcc expert in machine descriptions.
Have you looked into what I have done? Lets see my first big patch:
2002-12-02
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 18:57 ---
Andy there you go again:
Irrelevancies and make work for others.
You folks at gcc made tons of changes in gcc-4.3 regarding machine definitions
and similar. I have some evidence that some blatant mistakes were silen
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 17:29 ---
First off, can you attach the preprocessed source for built-in.c ?
Second this might not be a bug in GCC but in the kernel not providing all of
the required functions that are in libgcc.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu
12 matches
Mail list logo
