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: [PATCH] Fix part of pr25505

From: "Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Diego Novillo" <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Josh Conner" <jconner at apple dot com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 23:05:55 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
References: <44F6DBB3.2080809@apple.com> <44F769D1.1010205@redhat.com> <44F76AAE.7000601@redhat.com> <44F76EB9.3010103@apple.com> <44F829EB.40704@redhat.com> <44F85FD4.1070101@apple.com> <44F86195.3030008@redhat.com> <44F8652B.20609@apple.com> <84fc9c000609011318o42e4cee1i41ce1a4aaedeb351@mail.gmail.com>

Can it be that either of this caused

FAIL: gcc.dg/nrv3.c scan-tree-dump-times return slot optimization 2
FAIL: gnat.dg/frame_overflow.adb  (test for errors, line 12)
FAIL: gnat.dg/frame_overflow.adb  (test for errors, line 21)

on x86_64?

No for the latter two, they are in the baseline on 64-bit platforms.

--
Eric Botcazou

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: [PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
  - From: Josh Conner
- Re: [PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: [PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
  - From: Josh Conner
- Re: [PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
  - From: Richard Guenther

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