Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262011AbUKJUbs (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:31:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262124AbUKJUbT (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:31:19 -0500 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:52611 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262011AbUKJU2w (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:28:52 -0500 Message-ID: <41927ABA.9090604@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:31:54 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Viro CC: Clayton Weaver , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: broken gcc 3.x update ("3.4.3""fixed") References: <20041110094011.0A3434BE64@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com><20041110094011.0A3434BE64@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <20041110100723.GE24336@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20041110100723.GE24336@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1522 Lines: 38 Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 04:40:10AM -0500, Clayton Weaver wrote: > >>Apropos of the recent "older compilers" discussion, >>the string literal concatenation pre-processor bug >>that I mentioned encountering in gcc-3.3.x and >>gcc-3.4.[0,1] appears to be fixed in gcc-3.4.3. >>(It was not the well-known "##" token pasting >>pre-processor bug, incidentally.) >> >>I've only tested with glibc-2.2.5 so far, >>but I could reproduce it before with both >>glibc-2.2.5 and glibc-2.3.2, so it probably >>really is fixed. > > > 1) What the hell does glibc version have to preprocessor behaviour? There is no claim that it has anything, it just looks like a nice complete statement of the conditions of the test. I believe there were some issues with another problem, but I don't remember details. > 2) Could you post the code (as small as possible) that triggers whatever > bug you are talking about? Not a "here's the fragment that gets miscompiled" > but something that could be fed to gcc and actually reproduce the bug. I'd like to see that as well, in case it's something I might have in application code. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/