This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Aliasing fixes, take 3
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,"gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:20:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Aliasing fixes, take 3
- References: <20031122183756.GF7238@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <7740A82C-1EC9-11D8-936A-003065BDF310@apple.com>
> On Saturday, November 22, 2003, at 10:37 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>< FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010403-1.c execution, -O3
> >>< FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010403-1.c execution, -O3 -g
> >This is really not my day. I've missread the direction here.
> >iterator.cc is new failure
> So, I have a question, is staring at that style of diff output easier
> to read for you than the output from contrib/compare_tests?
> usage: contrib/compare_tests old/gcc.sum new/gcc.sum
That is definitly improvement. I've updated my scripts and asked Zdenek
to update this in his scripts I use for x86-64 testing. At least the
fiasco of last week can be good to make my testing procedures less error
prone... Many events of last week are someting I don't want to repeat