This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/50678] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: c52104y on x86_64-apple-darwin10
- From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:52:28 +0000
- Subject: [Bug target/50678] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: c52104y on x86_64-apple-darwin10
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-50678-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #41 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-17 22:52:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
I'll try and cook up a radar... (against sigtramp unwind data in Libc taking
into account your following comment).
I guess we should not expect a fix for Darwin 9 - so the fix will likely be
needed in any case.
> > It should be possible to produce a test-case w/out Ada (filing a bug that
> > requires GCC+Ada is not likely to get far). I wonder why my c++ case doesn't
> > appear to fail.
>
> Because %rbx is saved in the prologue of do_fail.
hm. Isn't that the correct action?
also - _ada_c52104y saves %rbx in its prologue.
I thought we were looking for a situation where the saves were OK, but the
restores were wrong - and I was expecting the c++ emulation to do roughly the
same thing. Perhaps there's a difference in the way it unwinds.