This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3 GCC regressions, 2 new, with your patch on 2002-03-28T00:20:34Z.
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
- Cc: neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk, gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, jh at suse dot cz, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz, ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE, schwab at suse dot de, tromey at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:06:08 -0800
- Subject: Re: 3 GCC regressions, 2 new, with your patch on 2002-03-28T00:20:34Z.
- References: <200203280258.g2S2wCX08582@maat.cygnus.com> <20020328065557.GB19665@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20020328081015.GW18838@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> 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>
> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:40:15 +1030
> From: Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au>
> Cc: gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org, jh@suse.cz, rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
> ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE, schwab@suse.de, tromey@redhat.com
> Mail-Followup-To: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>,
> gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org, jh@suse.cz,
> rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE,
> schwab@suse.de, tromey@redhat.com
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 06:55:57AM +0000, Neil Booth wrote:
> > GCC regression checker wrote:-
> >
> > > With your recent patch, GCC has some regression test failures, which
> > > used to pass. There are 2 new failures, and 1
> > > failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
> > > have been fixed.
> > >
> > > The new failures are:
> > > powerpc-eabisim gdb.sum gdb.base/funcargs.exp:
> > > powerpc-eabisim gdb.sum gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp:
> >
> > Anyone claiming these? I don't *think* they're mine, but I'm not
> > 100% sure.
>
> It may well be that my configure.in patch exposes latent bugs. We
> now have:
>
> checking assembler alignment features... .p2align including maximum skip
> checking assembler subsection support... working .subsection -1
> checking assembler weak support... yes
> checking assembler hidden support... yes
> checking assembler leb128 support... yes
> checking assembler eh_frame optimization... yes
> checking assembler section merging support... yes
> checking assembler dwarf2 debug_line support... yes
> checking assembler --gdwarf2 support... yes
> checking assembler --gstabs support... yes
> checking linker PT_GNU_EH_FRAME support... yes
>
> whereas previously I believe all these were (incorrectly) "no".
You fixed it! Thanks!
Yes, almost certainly these are latent bugs exposed by switching on
all the new assembler features. I'll look into them shortly.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>