This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] Re: ARM: testsuite gcc.c-torture/execute/20020307-2.c failure
- From: jeroen dobbelaere <jeroen dot dobbelaere at acunia dot com>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:40:34 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch] Re: ARM: testsuite gcc.c-torture/execute/20020307-2.c failure
- Organization: ACUNIA
- References: <200211131643.gADGhAR23107@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
jeroen dobbelaere wrote:
I have implemented this (similar to ia64) and I'm doing a regression
now (c only). First indication is that 20020307-2.c does not fail any
2002-11-13 Jeroen Dobbelaere <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* config/arm/arm.h (EXPAND_BUILTIN_VA_ARG,
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_va_arg,
* config/arm/arm-protos.h: Add prototypes.
no regressions seen (checked gcc, g++, objc, f77), 8 failures gone...
Which configuration have you tested?
It's quite important for a change like this that some checks with
libraries built with older compilers are run to ensure we haven't changed
what do you mean with 'older compilers' ?
The glibc that is used has been compiled with a gcc-3.0.4.
the ABI in some unexpected manner.
Any suggestion on how to do this exactly ?
Embedded Software Engineer
ACUNIA Embedded Solutions