This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/43572] [4.5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR19872.f execution test; formatted read - wrong numbers
- From: "mikpe at it dot uu dot se" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 21 Apr 2010 07:52:27 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/43572] [4.5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR19872.f execution test; formatted read - wrong numbers
- References: <bug-43572-276@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #28 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-04-21 07:52 -------
(In reply to comment #27)
> I think this broke gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/sibcall-1.c. I noticed it first
> when my 4.5-based gcc regressed on this test, and found evidence that trunk
> regressed similary between r158417 and r158459:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg01476.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg01534.html
>
> I'm now starting a C-only bootstrap+regtest of 4.5 with this one reverted to
> verify.
Confirmed, reverting the PR43572 fix restores the expected tailcall in arm's
sibcall-1.c test case.
I don't know if the tailcall-blocking fix can be made to distinguish between
references to local auto variables and references to formal parameters (which
is what sibcall-1.c needs). If it can't, perhaps just XFAIL sibcall-1.c ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43572