This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: 60 GCC regressions, 24 new, with your patch on 2002-07-30T23:53:00Z.


> Mailing-List: contact gcc-regression-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
> list-help: <mailto:gcc-regression-help@gcc.gnu.org>
> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:gcc-regression-unsubscribe@gcc.gnu.org>
> list-post: <mailto:gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org>
> cc: Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com, amodra@bigpond.net.au, bernds@redhat.com,
>    rth@redhat.com, toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl,
>    Geoff Keating <geoffk@redhat.com>, zack@codesourcery.com
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:24:00 -0400
> From: David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com>
> 
> 	The new g77 failures are ICEs in validate_condition_mode.  I am
> guessing that the g77 failures are due to Toon's patch and the following
> fragment from validate_condition_mode:
> 
>   /* These should never be generated except for 
>      flag_unsafe_math_optimizations.  */
>   if (mode == CCFPmode
>       && ! flag_unsafe_math_optimizations
>       && (code == LE || code == GE
>           || code == UNEQ || code == LTGT
>           || code == UNGT || code == UNLT))
>     abort ();
> 
> I suspect that the test needs to add flag_finite_math_only, but I won't be
> investigate this further until tomorrow.  If someone wants to analyze this
> and verify the proposed solution, be my guest.

Yes, your proposed solution is correct.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>


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