This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: sibcall.c SEGV fix

Hi Daniel,

On 20 Feb 2001, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > something from beginning of february).  Now I'm again staring at assembler
> > output ;)
> It wasn't intentionally behind your back,

I didn't want to imply you were doing it intentionally; if it sounded so,
sorry.  I did not even want to say, it was a bad thing, I was simply
surprised ;)

> you'll never believe what happened.
> It appears my warning from the morning never got through (still hasn't
> bounced, still hasn't shown in the mailing list archives. I wonder
> which puter has it), and then of course, the commit message is >200k
> because it stupidly decided it  looked nicer to list every testsuite
> file in consistency.vlad on a  seperate line, because of how long the
> original line was (IE it wrote
> testsuite/whatever/consistency.vlad/i960-97r2: foofile.c
>                                                fredfile.c
>                                                bobfile.c
> Of course, since there are quite a few files, we ended up with a huge
> commit message (5496 lines or so, going by what GNUS tells me), and it

Amazing ;)

> I was trying to be careful to merge the ra branch to a HEAD that would
> work, so i bootstrapped with the head on linuxPPC and x86 before
> merging. I had been holding off a few days since the bootstraps were
> failing, as soon as i got a successful one, I sent a warning message,
> waited a few hours, did the merge, waited a few more hours, and
> committed it.
> I can unmerge if you want me to wait a while longer, or sync to the
> 3.0 branch, or something.

No, it's good as it is now.  I now too moved myself to the new-regalloc
branch (I developed the ra.c based on HEAD from beginning of february),
actually I had done this, and just before I wanted to do the final
bootstrap before commiting I updated, and only expected some changes to
toplev.c ;-)  But now all is well.

> But I also had compiled and ran make check for about 1000 tests with
> the merged version, with no unexpected failures, before committing it.
> So I assumed it was safe.
> Sorry about that.

np.  I'm now going to commit my pending changes, so it all is in sync.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]