This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 10 GCC regressions, 8 new, with your patch on 2001-07-16T22:08:55Z.
- To: gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: 10 GCC regressions, 8 new, with your patch on 2001-07-16T22:08:55Z.
- From: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:32:32 -0400
- Cc: dan at cgsoftware dot com, jh at suse dot cz
- References: <200107170121.f6H1Lop04174@maat.cygnus.com>
"GCC regression checker" <regress@maat.cygnus.com> writes:
> With your recent patch, GCC has some regression test failures, which
> used to pass. There are 8 new failures, and 2
> failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
> have been fixed.
>
> The new failures are:
> powerpc-eabisim gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-7.c
> powerpc-eabisim gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/execute/comp-goto-2.c
> powerpc-eabisim gcc.sum gcc.dg/20000707-1.c
> powerpc-eabisim gcc.sum gcc.dg/unused-2.c
> native gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-7.c
> native gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/execute/comp-goto-2.c
> native gcc.sum gcc.dg/20000707-1.c
> native gcc.sum gcc.dg/unused-2.c
Jan, these look like they might have been affected by the unneeded
code labels, PRE doesn't even touch the code for at least , so
it's not a load motion problem. :)
Building from a tree right before your basic block patch makes the
regressions go away.
--Dan