Re: Possibly fixed in gcc 4.1.1, but bug box -- Was: Re: A smaller self contained test case ...

["Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com>]

M E Leypold wrote:

> I've been able to compile one of the smaller, selfcontained test cases
> with gcc-4.1.1 and it looks as if the Read/Write bug has been
> fixed. At least I don't get a SIGSEGV any more.
> 
> Unfortunately when compiling the larger program, I now get a bug box,
> that starts like this:
> 
>   +===========================GNAT BUG
>   DETECTED==============================+
>   | 4.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) in create_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:410        
>   |   |
>   | Error detected at sf-choicetables.adb:485:1                           
>   |   |
> 
> 
> Whereas I'll be trying to report _that_ also to whereever, I'm rapidly
> running out of temporal resources, so I'll not follow that new issue
> to its logical conclusion.
> 
> Just as a message to all those that have been responding that I should
> use a newer compiler:
> 
>  - gcc 3.4 hadn't fixed it yet.
> 
>  - With gcc-4.1.1 I first found a problem with the typing, then
> 
>  - I found the bug box above.
> 
> I've not been expecting anything else, since I've some experience with
> maintaining gcc on various platforms and dread out of experience what
> will happen if on tries to change the tool chain in just some hours.

Last time I heard, Ada is not a release criterion for gcc. As I understand
it, this means that the gcc version, even if GMGPL, can be in any state. It
could be perfectly ok yesterday, and today be broken in subtle ways, and
this wouldn't alter the gcc releasing schedule.

It's for this reason, coupled with the fact that AdaCore endorsed versions
use 3.4.6 as backend and not 4.x, and with the fact that gnat is enduring
heavy changes due to the addition of 2005 features, that I hold very low
expectatives on the gcc-gnat, for the time being.

> Let that be a lesson to those that don't hold dear their old compiler
> versions: Changing to new version will just get you new, different
> sneaky bugs, not less :-).

Ah, the times when one never ever ran in a compiler bug...