Re: 2.95.4 plans

[Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Franz Sirl wrote:

> Find appended the first bunch of patches I would like to commit.

I'll look into these.

> - the rtx_equal_function_matters change fixes
>   gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-5.c on PPC

Probably OK.

> - the c-common.c change fixes gcc.c-torture/execute/align-1.c

Probably OK as well, but there are some differences in the code between
the mainline and 2.95; I'll need to dig in the archives a bit to see
what's going on.

> - the stor-layout.c change fixes gcc.c-torture/execute/991014-1.c

I think I vaguely remember problems with this patch.  There may have been
followup changes.  This makes me slightly nervous, especially since the
failure it fixes is not really all that critical.

> - the function.c change fixes gcc.c-torture/execute/20001017-1.c
>
> We've already talked about the last one, this patch is more conservative than
> the one that went into the mainline and 3.0. I guess you still don't feel
> comfortable, that's why I want to get it in early in 2.95.4 for a long
> testing phase.

I'd like to see a bit more analysis of the problem first.  You told me the
compiler currently doesn't behave symmetrically, i.e. calls.c and function.c
don't agree on where the argument is placed.  Can you show me the
corresponding place in the code where we handle the argument differently?

> OK to commit?

Not yet.


Bernd