This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: XFAIL g77.f-torture/execute/980520-1.f at -O0
- From: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Cc: Geoffrey Keating <gkeating at apple dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:01:17 +0200
- Subject: Re: XFAIL g77.f-torture/execute/980520-1.f at -O0
- References: <20031014142300.D1CF633397F@geoffk4.apple.com> <3F8C5F46.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Op di 14-10-2003, om 22:40 schreef Toon Moene:
> Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> > This failure has been around for quite a while, and it doesn't look
> > like anyone is going to get around to fixing it before g95 comes
> > along. Thus, I xfail it.
> Steven has promised to solve this one - note that it is a 3.4 regression
> (see bugzilla http://gcc.gnu.org/PR9972).
The problem with this one is that it _seems_ to be impossible to
properly fix it without first eliminating flag_inline_trees, but all my
efforts on that get stuck on Java which (still) uses both the tree and
RTL inliners. The saga continues, ref. several PR audit trails.
But on the hammer branch this works, I think I'll have a look at what
went in there. IIRC there's a difference in toplev that Honza put on
the hammer branch to fix this, but it didn't go on mainline. I _will_
fix this, one way or another :-/