This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why XFAIL gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2b.x?
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Why XFAIL gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2b.x?
- From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 14:09:36 +0200
- Cc: "Billinghurst, David (CRTS)" <David dot Billinghurst at riotinto dot com>,"'gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <8D00C32549556B4E977F81DBC24E985D1B197D@crtsmail1.technol_exch.corp.riotinto.org><8D00C32549556B4E977F81DBC24E985D1B197D@crtsmail1.technol_exch.corp.riotinto.org>
At 19:31 01.05.2001, Richard Henderson wrote:
>On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 04:33:35AM -0000, Billinghurst, David (CRTS) wrote:
> > I note that gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2b.x has been XFAILed in the
> > testsuite. I don't think this is correct, as this failure is a regression
> > from gcc-2.95.
>It isn't, really. That bug fails off and on depending on
>the optimizers that run before and how good a job they do.
>The bug wasn't fixed for 2.95, merely obscured. Nor was
>it really broken by the patch you reference in the PR.
It should be easily fixable though, cause in this case we can just check if
INT_MAX*sizeof(*ptr) overflows the range (how does one do that in gcc?) a
ptr can hold and then reject the conversion of the loop condition into a