This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: fix eh tests on x86-darwin


> On 24/08/2006, at 9:21 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 18:26 -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm running one last bootstrap & testrun and will wait for that and
> >> for a day or so for people to comment before I commit.
> >
> > Why check in this patch for 4.2?  You know x86-darwin full support is
> > new for GCC 4.2 anyways so it cannot be a regression.  There are other
> > regressions (and bugs) which are more important which can be fixed
> > instead of working on something that does not effect any primary or
> > secondary target.
> 
> I've verified that the bug is indeed a regression by building the 4.1  
> branch on x86-darwin and confirming that if you compile gcc.dg/ 
> brendan/eh1.C with it, the resulting executable works:
> 
> PASS: g++.old-deja/g++.brendan/eh1.C execution test
> 
> I consider that x86-darwin support is important, because within the  
> lifespan of the 4.2 release I expect there will be more use of 4.2 on  
> x86-darwin than on ppc-darwin.

Why do you say that, there are so many more PowerPC Mac OS X boxes there
than x86 boxes and plus x86-darwin is a new target.  x86-darwin was broken
in GCCs before 4.2 really so it should not be considered a regression.

Also you don't make the primary/secondary targets, the SC decides those
and right now Powerpc-darwin is a secondary target while x86-darwin is not.

-- Pinski


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]