This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: backport of Revision 120684 for Macintel into gcc 4.2.1?

From: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot msbb dot uc dot edu>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, a dot tobler at schweiz dot org
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:14:01 -0400
Subject: Re: backport of Revision 120684 for Macintel into gcc 4.2.1?
References: <20070517030039.GA6636@bromo.msbb.uc.edu> <1BA3CAB0-E4A2-444C-9232-CEC3A2BD7ACF@apple.com> <84fc9c000705170151o12557ad3l1fb99629f140b6a8@mail.gmail.com>

Richard,
    A test build of r120684 applied to gcc 4.2.0 on powerpc-apple-darwin8
doesn't show the same Process_5 failure but rather a single Process_1
failure. Interestingly all the Thread_Sleep_2 failures I normally
see disappeared. Hopefully some of the libjava developers can shed
some light on the Process_# failures (perhaps we need to backport
additional patches from gcc trunk).
                  Jack
ps I'll do a build on i386 and x86_64 linux to see if the Process_#
regressions are Darwin specific.

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:51:58AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
> Introducing a regression on the branch doesn't sound reasonable.  Also
> are those regressions?  Or is the patch referenced strictly specifc to
> Darwin?
> 
> Richard.

References:
- backport of Revision 120684 for Macintel into gcc 4.2.1?
  - From: Jack Howarth
- Re: backport of Revision 120684 for Macintel into gcc 4.2.1?
  - From: Eric Christopher
- Re: backport of Revision 120684 for Macintel into gcc 4.2.1?
  - From: Richard Guenther

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