Mailing List ArchiveSupport open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][ghost@example.com: Correction re: Compiling Aladdin Ghostscript with gcc 2.7.x]
- To: tlug@example.com
- Subject: [ghost@example.com: Correction re: Compiling Aladdin Ghostscript with gcc 2.7.x]
- From: turnbull@example.com (Stephen J. Turnbull)
- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 96 18:29 JST
- Reply-To: tlug@example.com
- Sender: owner-tlug@example.com
For those of you with bleeding edge systems, there's a warning out on Ghostscript and GCC 2.7.x. "Aladdin Ghostscript" basically refers to versions more recent than 3.33. For those of you who don't know, L. Peter Deutsch is the "ghost" in "Ghostscript". So this is authoritative. I don't know what else that bug might affect, it looks pretty nasty. Steve > X-btw: vix.com is also gw.home.vix.com and vixie.sf.ca.us > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 14:55 PST > From: ghost@example.com (L. Peter Deutsch) > To: comp.lang.postscript@example.com, gs-beta@example.com In an e-mail earlier today, I said that gcc 2.7.0 and 2.7.1 had an optimizer bug that caused them to compile Aladdin Ghostscript incorrectly, and that the bug was fixed in gcc 2.7.2. Unfortunately, this is wrong: the bug is not fixed in gcc 2.7.2, which is the most recent gcc release. Therefore, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO COMPILE Aladdin Ghostscript WITH gcc 2.7.x UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO REBUILD gcc WITH THE PATCH FIRST. I have enclosed the patch at the end of this message for those who want to rebuild gcc. Meanwhile, I suggest that if you have gcc 2.7.x, you replace it with gcc 2.6.3. L. Peter Deutsch | Aladdin Enterprises :::: ghost@example.com 203 Santa Margarita Ave. | tel. +1-415-322-0103 (AM only); fax +1-415-322-1734 Menlo Park, CA 94025 | -&- Artifex Software Inc. :: tech@example.com "Implementation is the sincerest form of flattery." *** clean-ss-951203/expr.c Sun Nov 26 08:18:07 1995 --- ss-951203/expr.c Mon Dec 4 11:41:18 1995 *************** expand_expr (exp, target, tmode, modifie *** 4582,4588 **** through a pointer to const does not mean that the value there can never change. Languages where it can never change should also set TREE_STATIC. */ ! RTX_UNCHANGING_P (temp) = TREE_READONLY (exp) | TREE_STATIC (exp); return temp; } --- 4582,4588 ---- through a pointer to const does not mean that the value there can never change. Languages where it can never change should also set TREE_STATIC. */ ! RTX_UNCHANGING_P (temp) = TREE_READONLY (exp) & TREE_STATIC (exp); return temp; }
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Linux Books
- Next by Date: Re: Adaptec's mailer
- Prev by thread: Java Speed Increased
- Next by thread: Installing LINUX
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links